macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2001-05-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I want to begin my remarks on this legislation by thanking the gentleman from Ohio . the chairman of my committee. for all of his cooperation and for the honorable manner in which he dealt with every member of our committee. especially those members on our side. We recognize we are in the minority. It makes it very difficult from time to time. but the gentleman from Ohio was very candid with us. very forthcoming. and I think created an atmosphere in which we could arrive at this work product with this bipartisan conclusion. I would also say that. as I watched him work. as he assumed the chairmanship of this committee. and as I watched him work with individual members of the committee and to deal with all of the issues that were thrown at us during the months of discussion of this legislation. and during our markup. I saw a legislator at work. and he should be very proud. I also want to thank those who worked so very hard. the members of. our committee as members of the working group: the gentleman from Michigan . the gentleman from Delaware . the gentlewoman from Hawaii . the gentleman from California . the gentleman from Indiana
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman frbm Oregon (Mr. Wu). a member of the Committee. (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak for a moment about H.R. 1. which I consider to be a good bill. but one which could be even better. There are two notable omissions from this bill: a freestanding effort to reduce class size. and a freestanding effort to build new schools or to repair crumbling schools. Class size reduction efforts are included in this bill. but they compete. they compete with teacher quality and teacher training programs. I submit to the Members that no school. no parent. should have to choose between having a quality teacher and a small class size. which promotes learning and teaching. This is the only way that we can truly leave no child left behind. Many Members know that many parents choose to send their children to private school substantially in part to get the benefits of smaller class size. But all children should have the benefit of this kind of education. a small class and a quality teacher. Small class size. reducing class size. was a freestanding effort lost in the Senate by 50 to 48. and we were not permitted to bring that amendment to this floor. I urge the conferees to restore the freestanding program in the conference committee. This program has fallen victim to politics associated with the Clinton adrfinistration. I think that is extremely unfortunate. because this is not a Clinton idea. this is a commonsense idea. one which benefits all children across America. and we should restore it to this bill any way we can.
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the chairman for his comments. and I look forward to working with him and others in the conference committee to help these families advance their childrens academic performance. especially by encouraging a range of solutions to stabilize their residential situation during the early years of learning for their children. -
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. the gentleman from Ohio . the chairman. has quite properly explained his amendment. and we have no opposition to it. Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington .
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. we have no problem with sense of the Congress amendment on this matter offered by the gentleman from Missouri . This has obviously been a matter that has been of growing concern in the Congress to make sure that we. in fact. have the ability to drive every dollar possible to the classroom. to the local level. where the decisionmaking that is on a daytoday basis for the well being of our children is made and that they have the opportunity to use those resources that we have dedicated for that purpose. I would say. however. that I find this somewhat in conflict with those who will support the Straight As proposal because. in fact. the Straight As proposal allows 8 percent of the title I money to be held at the State level and 10 percent of the money on everything else to be held at the State level. This is money that a State would hold onto itself. and in many instances we know that that is really about the bureaucracy funding itself. a State bureaucracy funding itself. with Federal dollars. Whether that in some cases is legal or not. the fact of the matter is that is what happens. So we support this resolution because we strongly believe that we should be driving these dollars to the classroom. We also strongly believe that we should increase the flexibility at the local level. and we have done that in this legislation. That is why later on we will be opposing the proposal on the Straight As.
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairman for his comments. I think clearly this amendment is consistent with what we said we want to do in this legislation. and we have no opposition. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2001-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Military service increases selfesteem. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such tiie discipline. devotion to duty. selfless as I may consume. service. and love of country. That is Mr. Chairman. I know of no real op- not too bad. No recruiters. no money. position to this amendment. There are Let us open the door to those who some who obviously think that this is serve our young men and women and a decision school boards ought to be allow them to serve this great Nation. making. They are elected by the people We. as a Nation. will not be disin the community. if that is the view of appointed. the people in the communities. then Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman. I yield maybe they ought to reflect that. But 30 seconds to the gentleman from I know of no real opposition here. North Carolina . Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal- Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman. I enthuance of my time. siastically support the VitterSessions
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Georgia had it exactly wrong. The fact of the matter is that in California. we are using less energy than we did in 1998. In 1998. we paid $7 billion for that energy and today. we are paying 70. 70. $70 billion. ten times as much. Why? Because the Bush administration refuses to tell the Federal Energy Commission to enforce the Federal law for just and reasonable wholesale prices. So the people of California who have an energy shortage because of a bad deregulation plan. because we have not built as many generators -as we should. and because of a drought in the northwest. areb now open to price gouging and profiteering by the energy companies. The Federal Energy Commission has made that finding. It is not my finding. it is their finding. that these prices are not just and reasonable. but they refuse to enforce the law to put caps on at a just and reasonable price so that the energy companies will get their 15 or 20 percent return. They simply will not get to continue to gouge the people of California. the small businesses. the large businesses. people in hospitals who are having the lights go out. their life support systems turned off because of the Bush administrations inaction.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This legislation and this bipartisan agreement. and it is bipartisan reporting from the committee. takes an unprecedented step in expanding the transferability at the local level so that local school districts can make a determination about the application of those resources. But this legislation also understands that these programs are not about some Washington bureaucrat. These programs are about the Congress of the United States saying these are areas that we believe there should be an important commitment of resources: safe and drugfree schools. teacher quality improvement. innovative strategies and technology. These are articulations of the congressional will on a bipartisan basis certainly over the last 10 or 15 years that these are either emerging areas that need attention and the Federal dollars ought to be applied there. because there are areas where there are deficits. but at the same time in this legislation we have taken the unprecedented step to say that we can have transferability of 50 percent of the money. because in some instances it makes sense to allow them to double up the resources on a shortterm basis to improve the quality of teachers. or to purchase technology so they can ramp it up and get it running and get on their way. But the Hoekstra amendment is simply an amendment that goes too far. It is violative of the bipartisan agreement we have. It is violative of the vote in the committee reporting this to the floor. It recognizes the tension between a fullblown block grant and the notion that we ought to have improved flexibility at the local level. That is what we decided on doing. That is what we decided on as a committee to do. to see whether or not over the next 5 years we could see how this transferability takes place. We ought to honor that agreement. It is a rational agreement and makes sense. It also keeps faith with the congressional priorities that this Congress has determined we ought to be using Federal dollars for in the poorest schools with the poorest performing children. because. after all. that is a program that we have before us today to help make up those deficits in teacher qualifications in the poorer schools. in lacking technology in the poorer schools. I would hope that the Congress and the House would stay with the bipartisan agreement that we have. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I was proud. to stand with the gentleman from Michigan to oppose additional Federal mandates yesterday. and it is a value that we share. This debate .that we are having today. I agree with the gentleman and the gentleman from Colorado that this should not be about agreements between politicians. It should be about learning. This debate should be about priorities. This debate should be about responsibility. We have a responsibility to bring the best learning we can to our school children. and we have a responsibility to spend tax dollars wisely. We have a responsibility to bring focus priorities to these programs that we are talking about: school safety. teacher quality and class size reduction. school technology. These are important priorities that we have set at a national level. and we have agreed to reduce bureaucracy and to increase transferability to the 50 -percent mark. But why not raise it to 75 percent? Why not raise it to 100 percent? I believe the answer is we should not raise it to 100 percent. and it is. I admit. a difficult matter to set where the line should be. but as we negotiate these lines and move them toward the 100 percent. I believe that we abdicate responsibility. Our responsibility is to spend tax dollars wisely and to focus on efforts that help our school children. Mr. Chairman. I agree with the gentleman that we need to give local flexibility. and we have set the right amount in this bill. I oppose the Hoekstra amendment.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. we have no opposition to this amendment. We support the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman. I was one of the original sponsors. coauthors and authors of the IDEA Act when I first came to Congress in 1975. I have very strong feelings about our obligations to educate students with disabilities. I was also the first author of the Act who said that you would expel students from schools if they brought guns to schools. I have very strong feelings that our schools are a place of learning. they ought to be a sanctuary. and the streets ought not to come into our schools. But these two values clash. My concern is this: The suggestion is somehow that children with handicaps are privileged. that children with handicaps have preferential treatment. No. what we do under the law is recognize that children with handicaps. with disabilities. in many instances. must be treated differently because of those disabilities. And what we do in this is suggest that we cannot. under the Federal law.. deny them continued education if they are suspended. because we understand the problems of educating some of these children. many of whom have multiple handicaps. multiple disabilities. that if we stop the educational services. in many instances. it is very difficult to start or to have that child catch up. There is nothing in the Federal law that says that that child must return to school. A decision must be made in 55 days. but there is nothing that says the child must return to school. The gentleman from Georgia and the committee. when we were deliberating ihis. handed out an article from the Orlando Sentinel and he said that this child should not be back in school. But when we read the article. it makes very clear that the school authorities are educating the child while he is in a juvenile detention center. The school authorities make it very clear that this child will never return to his school. This child will not go back to school. They do not want to return him home. but they are going to continue to educate him because that is what the law requires. By the same token. the law does not require that that student be returned to school. It says we cannot have a secession of the educational program. And we should not change that law today. We should not change that law today.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman. if I might ask either of the authors a question about the amendment because we have no opposition to the amendment. I think we fully understand the problems and the concerns that the authors are trying to address. but we would like to clarify obviously some concern of. very often. school teachers. Under State law. in a number of instances. teachers are required to react to their concerns about whether or not a child has been abused or not. and they must make some inquiries of that child. My understanding is this amendment would not impact in any way the ability of those school officials to engage in that sometimes. unfortunately. necessary activity.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

We raise this concern. and I thank the gentleman for his answer. We raise this concern because obviously. again in very tragic and unfortunate situations. many times the child abuse is within the home and the parent cannot be notified that the teacher wants to ask questions of the child. and we just want to make sure that this does not get in the way. Some of the groups have raised that concern. I do not think the amendment does that. but I would certainly like. if it is possible. that we could continue to work on this if that problem somehow materializes so that does not happen.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California . a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the * gentlewoman from Hawaii . a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I want all my colleagues to hear and understand that. make no mistake about it. this is a makeorbreak amendment. It is a makeorbreak amendment as to whether all children in America will get access to a quality education or not. It is a makeorbreak amendment as to whether we are going to have a truly bipartisan bill or whether this is going to be straight down party lines and the same old partisan thing. I urge strong opposition to this amendment for two very important reasons: it is bad policy. and it is so deceptive that it borders on the fraudulent. It is bad -policy because this amendment would propose to stripmine public resources away from public schools and give them to private institutions. I think that is wrong. It is deceptive because. right out here on the House steps. I was asked by someone. Why will you not support vouchers? I want to take a voucher and go to a private school. I asked that person. Well. are you in poverty? Because if you are not. then you are not going to be eligible for this program. I want my colleagues to know something else. Under the program -as authorized. one would get $1.500. Under the program that is probably appropriate. one is going to get $500 or $600. That will pay for perhaps 10 percent of a parochial education. It would probably pay for less than 5 percent of a fully loaded private education in my hometown. It is very. very deceptive to think that this measure will create any real choices for the people that we are talking about today. It is deceptive. It is wrong. I urge all my -colleagues to maintain the best bipartisan bill we can and oppose this amendment today.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I.yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. America does something that no other country in the world does: It makes a commitment to a child born in this Nation that we will provide them a public education. A free education. We have been doing it throughout most of the history of this country. and we have done a remarkable job. Not a perfect job. not a job that is acceptable to all of us. but we have done a remarkable job. No other country in history has attempted to do what we do here. to take children from any background. to take children of any status and say we commit to them that we are going to provide them an education. What has been the result of that basic foundation of American society? The basic foundation of American society. The result is the greatest economy in the history of the world. more patents. more inventions than any country in the world. the freest country in the world. the greatest democracy in the world. a public discourse. and more tolerance than any other country in the world. That is not to suggest the landscape in America is perfect. that it does not have its problems. that we do not have our pockets of trouble. We do. We do. But to come along now and to suggest that we are going to start draining the resources from the public school. education system in this country so that we can hold out to somebody the idea that they are going to go and take that $500. and they are going to get a private school education is simply to mislead those individuals. It is simply to mislead those individuals. The harm it does is in draining the resources that are necessary. We recognize in this legislation. the President of the United States recognizes in this legislation. Democrats recognize in this legislation. and Republicans recognize in this legislation that there are schools that are failing. We make a commitment to fix the failing schools. not run away from them. not leave children behind in those schools. but to fix those schools. That is our obligation. That is the bedrock of this Nation. . That is what distinguishes us in so many ways. We should not give up on that now and turn tail and run. In this bill we provide the resources so that we can fix those schools. That is what this President has said he wanted to do. This Congress took him at his word. Those resources were put into this legislation. And now we are going to find out. because governors are on notice and school boards are on notice and parents are on notice. We should not give up on a system that has done something that no other country in the world has done. and has given us what America enjoys and benefits from today.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. and pending that. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. for purposes of closing the debate. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded vote. and -pending that. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no opposition to this amendment with the gentlemans explanation that he just gave that there is no intent here to prohibit essay or short responses on test questions. and we support the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that we have no opposition to this. but I would like just for a second to follow up on what the gentleman from Indiana said. because I think as we try to determine the role. the proper role. if you will. for testing. I think that the gentleman from Indiana made some very good points. We ought not to be. and I think that the concern of people who voted against testing in many instances. in talking to them. was that we were trying to use tests for things that they were not properly designed for. The States are controlling this. but I think they clearly have to start thinking about. does this test accurately give us a picture that allows us to make some assessments. or is that an improper use of that exam. and what vehicles could we use to do the diagnostic work that the gentleman talked -about. so that we could then concentrate the resources on a child that is struggling with math or with reading and get that child up to speed. The test does not necessarily tell us that. so we would hope that in this consideration of the proper role of testing that the States would think that through. because obviously. as we see around the country. there are many communities. many parents. many educators who are very. very concerned about the valid use of testing. I certainly believe that is.a key component of the accountability provisions of this law. and I think this amendment helps us in that regard.
Date: 2001-05-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. we have examined the amendment. We have no opposition to it. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.