macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2004-05-12
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. under rule XXII. clause 7(c). I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660. the fiscal year 2004 LaborHHS appropriations bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment to prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect September 3. 2003. except that nothing in the amendment shall affect the increased salary requirements provided in such regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. as promulgated on April 23. 2004.
Date: 2004-05-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I see in the morning papers that the Republicans have a problem with Senator KERRYS characterization of this administration as arrogant in its foreign policy Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore their economic advisers that tell them the real cost of the war will be $200 billion. and not a couple of billion paid for by theIraqis? Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore their military advisers on the number of troops that will be necessary. not only to win the war. but to keep the peace and protect our troops from harm? Arrogance. What do you call it when they send their troops into combat without the proper equipment to protects those troops. such as bulletproof vests and armored Humvees. and still have not done it today? Printed on recycled paper. Arrogance. What do you call it when they ignore the advice of the State Department that we have to have international support for the war and international participation in the keeping of the peaQe? We had neither. Arrogance. What do you call it when they rush to war. and the Pentagon s.ays that rush to war prevented us from being able to protect our soldiers in a proper way. and now one out of four casualties is because we were improperly prepared to keep the peace? Arrogance. That is what you call it.
Date: 2004-05-13
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for introducing this resolution. and. in particular. I want to thank my friend. the gentleman from Michigan for including in this important bill a reference to Mendez v. Westminster. I rise today in support of this resolution recognizing the importance of Brown v. Board of Education. But Brown v. Board of Education was actually built on a few important cases. one of which is the Mendez v. Westminster. which happened. if you can believe this. in Orange County. California. In 1945. Felicitas Mendez took her child. Silvia. and her niece and her nefbhew down the block to the local school to enroll them. The niece and the nephew were lighter skinned. they could go to that school. She was told that her own daughter. who was darker skinned. would have to go across town to the Mexican school. Felicitas Mendez was a Puerto Rican. The Mexican school took the Asians and the blacks and all the other darkskinned people. like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Well. Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez decided to fight that. and they filed a lawsuit. along with four other families. against Westminster. Anaheim. Santa Ana. and El Modena districts. seeking an injunction against all schools in Orange County. On February 18. 1946. Mendez v. Westminster was decided in favor of the Mendez family. and on April 14. 1947. the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Mendez familys case. It was the first case in Federal Court of the doctrine of separate but equal. naming it unconstitutional. California Governor Earl Warren signed desegregation of California. 8 years ahead of the rest of the Nation. Of course. 8 years later Thurgood Marshall would use that case as he argued Brown v. Board of Education. and Warren sat on that Supreme Court. The bravery and the dedication of Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez opened the doors for better education to all children in the United States. and I thank this Congress for acknowledging how important Brown v. Board of Education is.
Date: 2004-05-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased today to support this resolution encouraging all Americans to observe the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education with a commitment to continuing and building on its legacy. Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most important decisions our Supreme Court has ever made. Its important to celebrate the progress that has been made over the past 50 years in eliminating discrimination and inferior education for lowincome and minority childrenbut its also important to take a good. hard look at how far we still have to go. Sadly. we are still light years away from providing the equal education envisioned by Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren.. Today. as in 1954. the quality of a childs education is still all too often linked to the color of his or her skin. Just as the United States has the best health care in the world for those who can afford it. we have one of the best public education systems in the world if you happen to grow up in a predominantly white or wealthy community. But what if you dont? If you are one of the millions of children who attend predominantly minority schools. our society continues to fail you. And that shortchanges not only the children. but the future of this nation. It is shameful that poor and minority children are often assigned to lesschallenging classes and less qualified teachers. The best teachers are often across town. a virtual world away from the students who need them desperately. Black students are assigned disproportionately to special education. and lowincome
Date: 2004-05-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I thank him for all of his leadership on this legislation. I was wondering why we were here today. but I guess we are here today to demonstrate that we are working on behalf of the American people. It is an interesting definition of work. that we are going to repeat something that we have already done earlier in the year that has already been completed. but we are going to go through it again. so you think we are working for you. I thought they called that featherbedding or something in the old days. when you looked like you were working but you were not working. But anyway. what is interesting here is that once again we see the Republicans offering another piece of legislation that just continues an assault on middleincome Americans. They did it with overtime pay: cut it. will not let us consider it. comp time. ended. unemployment insurance assistance. terminated. job training. slashed. negotiations for cheaper prescription drugs. prohibited. When .is it the middle class is going to get to win one with this Republican leadership in the Congress? Now we come to this health care plan whichis to basically give an offer to people of health care that is unregulated. that is opposed by all of the State Attorneys General and the National Governors Association and so many others who have experience with these plans in trying to make sure that people are not cheated out of the money that they pay and the benefits that are offered. But they are not going to allow us to have the amendments that would substantially change this bill. because they do not want to vote on those amendments. They do not want to vote on amendments that would improve this legislation. That is unfortunate. because as they do continue their assault on the middle class. at least those of us 206 Members on the Democratic side ought to be able to reflect the voices of the people that we represent. We ought to be able to offer the amendments to provide for their protection and for their expanded health care. but that is not the way they run the House nowadays. Nowadays you either have to take their idea or no idea. And that is just unacceptable when we are considering a problem as complicated and with the absolute sense of urgency that the Nation has about health care. So this is very unfortunate. that we would take these 4 hours that we will probably consume on this legislation and simply go through a charade that was already acted out in the House of Representatives last year in this Congress. The Senate can consider it anytime they want. But we are going to go through this charade rather than allowing amendments that could -be offered to substantially improve this legislation. amendments much like the effort we made yesterday on overtime. to offer a chance to vote on overtime. we would prevail on a bipartisan basis. but the Republicans are so concerned that they would rather choke off the debate and not allow those amendments to take place.
Date: 2004-05-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. and I want to thank him for all his work on this issue. As the chairman of the committee said at the beginning of his remarks. we have 43.6 million Americans who have no health insurance today. Now. the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the associated health plan approach might cover 550.000 of them. less than 1 percent of the insured. If that were the end of the story. we might say. okay. does not do much. but it is better than nothing. The problem is it is not better than nothing because it violates the first principle in medicine. which is first do no harm. because the Congressional Budget Office also tells us that 7.9 million Americans who currently are cpvered will get worse coverage or pay more as a result of the actions taken in this bill. Mercer Consultants has said that 1 million Americans will lose their coverage. Do the math. Clearly. it is a lousy bargain. Much more harm. very. very little benefit. and that is because associated health plans. by design. eliminate many of the protections that are currently provided through State legislatures around the country for our consumers: basic commonsense rules of the road. like the. right to external review if a persons insurance claim is deni6d. direct access for women to OB/ GYNs. access to emergency room treatment. a prohibition against gag orders on doctors. In fact. these basic patient protections are so fundamental. they have been adopted in a bipartisan manner by this House before. When this House passed a Patients Bill of Rights. it was going to apply those rights to ERISA plans and the other plans. Why not do the same thing today? Well. my colleague. the gentleman from Massachusetts . and I just the other day went to the Committee on Rules and said let us have an amendment here on the floor of the House that guarantees those patients the same protections this House. in a bipartisan manner. guaranteed them a number of years ago. We were not even allowed a vote on that very simple amendment. Why is the other side afraid of a vote on providing patients the very same rights that this House has already provided those patients? Let me just say that if my colleagues ask State legislators and Governors from around this country whether they are for or against this. we have heard the National Governors Association is against this. In fact. my Governor. the Governor of the State of Maryland. a Republican Governor. one of our former colleagues.. Governor Ehrlich. has written to the Maryland congressional delegation and said please do not pass this bill because it will interfere with a primary piece of legislation that was passed in the State of Maryland to provide for small group insurance benefits. and small employers throughout the State of Maryland are taking advantage of it. This would undercut it. There is a better alternative. We are going- to be debating that later. We are not saying we do not have any proposal out here. We have a much better proposal. I urge my colleagues to reject this idea and later adopt the substitute.
Date: 2004-05-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity. while discussing National Transportation Week. to personally thank the 11 million Americans in our Nations transportation workforce. especially those in Texas and the DallasFort Worth area. for their hard work. They literally keep America moving. and I am pleased that we can recognize them alr today. Mr. Speaker. moving people and goods quickly and efficiently is vital to keeping the United States globally competitive. and we need to break the impasse and complete a rightsized highways and transit bill. The needs are many. and many Americans need the work. Not only must we adequately invest in our transportation systems. but we must also continue to invest in transportation workforce development. Todays youth in America will be constructing and operating our future transportation systems. and we must encourage imagination. innovation and interest in transportation. Mr. Speaker. National Transportation Week could not have come at a better time. I urge the administration to allow us to proceed with a highways and transit bill that will create good jobs for Americans and provide resources to deal with the bottlenecks. crumbling bridges. the need for more light rail construction. intermodal terminals. trade corridors. transportation security. and safety programs. [ 1430 " I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska and ranking member. the gentleman from Minnesota . for being some of our Nations biggest advocates for safe and efficient transportation systems. I look forward to continuing to work with them to address our Nations infrastructure needs. I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands
Date: 2004-05-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Nevada . I rise in support of this resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol grounds for activities associated with the dedication of the World War II Memorial. The main dedication event is scheduled for Saturday. May 29. during the Memorial Day holiday weekend. The resolution authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for public events in conjunction with the dedication. In 1993. President Clinton signed PL 10332 to authorize the construction of a memorial in Washington. D.C.. to all the members of the armed services who served in World War II. In 1995. President Clinton dedicated the site on the Mall and the proposed design was unveiled at the White House in 1997. The gentlewoman from Ohio is a leading advocate for the memorial and has been its staunch champion and sponsored this resolution. Consistent with any event on the Capitol grounds. this event shall be free of charge and open to the public. To accommodate overflow visitors and participants. the Architect of the Capitol is authorized to set up a stage and any sound equipment that may be required for the event. Further. the Capitol Hill Police shall enforce the traditional restrictions on advertising on the Capitol grounds. The dedication is an event long anticipated by World War II veterans and their families. I support the resolution and urge its passage. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2004-05-17
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. envision this: an undocumented immigrant or a legal permanent resident or even a U.S. citizen suffers severe abdominal pain and finds himself in the emergency room of a nearby hospital. The first order of business for the emergency physician. nurse. or whoever is attending the patient is not to ask them where it hurts and do a physical exam to see if their life is in imminent danger. but to ask their immigration status and get a sworn statement to that effect. If that patient at that particular moment cannot prove their legal status. that same doctor must make the choice not to provide care to this person. or they must at least report them to the immigration officials before providing lifesaving treatment. I ask you. what kind of choice is that? What happens if that same immigrant decides not to seek care because of the potential consequences and what could become a burst appendix leads to infection. more expensive care or possibly even death? There is no humanity in the choice you are asking health care workers to make in this circumstance. They are no longer healers. but immigration law enforcers. What is even more appalling is that the Republican leadership chooses to pursue this course of action to deal with this countrys immigration problem rather than look at the comprehensive immigration reform measures that have been introduced in the House. If the Republicans are serious about reforming immigration. then take a look at the bill the Democrats introduced which would bring a sense of order and reason to the influx of immigrants into this country. Let us not jeopardize our entire public health system in this misguided attempt to bring down health care costs and deport undocumented workers. This bill is an affront to our health care professionals and to the immigrant community in this country which would no longer be able to get care without presenting their green card first. I urge a "no" vote on this legislation.
Date: 2004-05-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. subject to rule XXII. clause 7(c). I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2660. Departments of Labor. Health and Human Services. and Education. and Related. Agencies Appropriations Act. 2005. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2660 be instructed to insist on reporting an amendment to .prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds under the Act to implement any portion of a regulation that would make any employee ineligible for overtime pay who would otherwise qualify for overtime pay under regulations under section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act in effect September 3. 2003. except that nothing in the amendment shall affect the increased salary requirements provided in such regulations as specified in section 541 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. as promulgated on April 23. 2004.
Date: 2004-05-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILILER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Californih

Mr. Speaker. I think mi6st people recognize that California often leads the Nation in its efforts to protect the environment. It also leads the Nation as the most efficient user of energy. There are few issues more unifying than the importance of protecting our coasts from the impacts of offshore oil drilling. Time and again. local. State and Faderal bfficials in both parties have supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. Yet. despite the campaign rhetoric clainiing to oppose offshore drilling. this administration has attempted every backdoor route to weaken coastal protections. All we have to do is look at the energy bill and find numerous provisions supported by the administration that paved the way to drilling off the coast of California. In fact. just this month Aera. a subsidiary of Shell/ExxonMobil. indicated it is moving forward with its intentions to develop several leases off the coast of Santa Barbara that are not subject to the drilling moratorium. The President stepped in in the same situation in Florida and bought out those leases. Florida. a State where his brother is Governor. but he will not do this in California. Further. the administration. through the energy bill. has repeatedly tried to weaken the State of Californias ability to regulate the activities at the State level that might impact our coasts.
Date: 2004-05-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak about the declining state of the economy. When President Bush took office. we had a $236 billion budget surplus and the Nation had created 22 million jobs in the previous 8 years. The country was experiencing the biggest drop in child poverty in a generation and the lowest poverty rate in 20 years. Today. 8.2 million Americans are looking for work and the unemployment rate is 30 percent higher. 2.2 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. Household income has decreased by almost $1.500 per family. The number of the uninsured has increased by 3.8 million. College tuition is up 28 percent. As busy as we are and as important as the effort on foreign policy is. I hope this administration would dedicate some of its time to economic security as well. The American people have suffered much from terrorism. They do not need to suffer any more from President Bushs faltering and failed economic policies.
Date: 2004-05-18
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

If a motion to table this motion on overtime pay prevails. will it have the effect of denying the Members any debate on this issue?
Date: 2004-05-18
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Then to be clear. let me understand that this means that we will not have the hour of debate on the Department of Labors efforts to deny millions of workers currently eligible for overtime from receiving overtime in the future?
Date: 2004-05-18
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. on rollcall Nos. 180. 181. and 182. I was unavoidably detained and unable to make the vote. Had I been present. I would have voted: "No" on No. 180. joint rule for consideration of H.R. 2728. 2729. 2730. 2731. "No" on No. 181. tabling Miller motion to instruct conferees on overtime. "No" on No. 182. H.R. 3722. Undocumented Alien Emergency Assistance Amendments of 2004.