macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-10-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time. I want to join in this tribute to our chairman. BILL GOODLING. Mr. Speaker. we have had our battles. They even got to the point one time where he threatened to hit me over the head with the gavel. and I thought the next committee meeting I would come wearing a helmet so that we could continue our amicable discussions. But I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has hit it on the head. There was a core principle there. And as much as we come from different parts of the ideological spectrum. I was amazed at how well we were able to work together. once I understood the code. The code was simply: You mean what you say and you say what you mean. BILL GOODLING has held that principle all of the time that he has served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We came together to the Congress and served our entire careers on that committee. His focal point was the children and whether or not we really meant what we said. If we were going to have quality. then we were going to have quality and we were going to hold someone accountable for delivering that quality. And if they were not going to do that. we were not going to fund them or we were going to know why. When we said we were going to fund the excess cost of special education. the 40. percent. in his time as chairman he has moved us further toward that goal than any other single individual. When they said that a diploma ought to mean something. he asked those questions and that is what teacher empowerment was about. whether or not a diploma would. in fact. mean something. For schools of education where we are turning out our teachers of the future. if they did not know the subjects they were teaching. he wanted to know why. and has dramatically changed the manner in which schools of education will now educate the teachers of the future so they will be better equipped to provide that quality education that has always been at the core of all of his dealings on this committee. He has not been much for the politics. He has not been much for the posturing. But he has certainly done a great deal for the education and the wellbeing of the children of this Nation. and we are going to miss him. Mr. Speaker. it has been a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 2000-10-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. while I will not oppose H.R. 4389. I will note that this project transfer bill does not in my view represent good stewardship of a valuable Federal asset. The bill is full of generalities. and the United States and taxpayerowners get practically nothing out of this deal. No environmental benefits will result from this transfer. and public involvement opportunities are minimal. My formal views on H.R. 4389 are set forth in the Committee Report accompanying the bill. The bill mandates conveyance without first allowing the Secretary to determine whether such a conveyance is in the public interest. The bill should. instead simply authorize the conveyance so the Secretary can make such a determination. The bill does not provide for local public involvement prior to final action on the transfer. The bill fails to provide for environmental protection and enhancement. Environmental protection and enhancement are the appropriate quid pro quo to mitigate for posttransfer loss of federal control and applicability of most federal lavs. Finally. H.R. 4389 creates a fixed "sale price" prior to knowing the details of the transfer. The United States should negotiate a fair price for the conveyance only after the terms and conditions of transfer are established through negotiations with local stakeholders. Transfers of Western water projects to local beneficiaries are not inherently bad. but H.R. 4389 should not be used as a template for future transfers. These projects are publiclyowned. and taxpayer interests should be recognized and protected.
Date: 2000-10-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Madam Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield all of the time on this side to the gentleman from Oregon for the purposes of controlling the time.
Date: 2000-10-04
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. just quickly. because I want to follow on a point that the gentleman from New York made. and that is that this is not an abstract discussion. As he has pointed out and as other speakers have pointed out. when Governor Bush says that his answer is to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. that is a matter that has been proposed and has been reported out of committee by the Republicans in the United States Senate. The reason it will not happen this year is because of the veto threat of the ClintonGore administration not to do it. But that is what stopped it the last couple of years. This is not something that people are thinking about later on. They are actively trying to do it. We have seen it in our committee. in the Committee on Resources. We have seen effort after effort reported out by the Republicans in the Congress to undermine clean water. to dndermine clean air. to undermine the Endangered Species Act. to undermine the Superfund Act. The reason they have not become law is because of the ClintonGore administration because they say they will not accept it. that they will veto those bills. and the Republicans have to back down. Just in the bill we passed yesterday. there were over 20 damaging environmental riders on that bill. This is not abstract. That was yesterday on a vote. The reason those riders did not end up on that bill is because the President and the Vice President said they would not accept them. Now think. now think of Washington. D.C. and we have President George W. Bush. No threat of a veto. Agreement on this policy. What do we end up with? We end up with. like the gentleman from New York pointed. out. we end up looking like Texas. We end up looking like Texas. That is not what America wants. It is completely out of step. not with the Democrats. but with America. American people do not want this kind of environmental wrecking crew ranging across the very bedrock laws of this Nation that protect our environment. that protect our quality of life. that protect our communities. and just throwing them out because the timber industry. the mining industry. the oil industry. the chemical industry are not happy with these laws. It does not matter if one lives in New York City. if one lives in the San Francisco Bay area or Portland or lives in Upstate New York or one lives in the South or one lives in Florida. It does not matter. If one is going to drill in the Arctic. what is.it that keeps Mr. Bush from drilling off the coast of California where the citizens have said no. off the coast of Florida. off the coast of the Carolinas. where people have said no we do not want our areas spoiled. If he is prepared to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. what keeps him from going off the coast of Florida and California? What keeps those places from being drilled today? The ClintonGore administration. because they are the ones. they are the ones that have continued to fight for those moratoriums.
Date: 2000-10-04
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I want to express my appreciation to the leadership and for the bill that has been introduced for this subject because I think that it is of high priority. Mr. Speaker. today I became a cosponsor of H.R. 5158. the Second Chance Voting Rights Act of 2000. The legislation. authored by my colleague Representative JUANITA MILLENDERMCDONALD. would automatically re.store federal voting rights to any formerly incarcerated person upon the unconditional release of that individual from incarceration and completion of their sentence. including parole. This legislation is necessary because thousands of exoffenders are denied the fundamental right to vote. Under the Constitution. states have the authority to deny the right to vote to an individual who is imprisoned and to restore that right once a person is released. Many states automatically return the right to vote once the former prisoners sentence has been completed. However. some states require prisoners to meet certain procedural requirements to have their voting rights restored. and a few go as far as requiring a "pardon" for voting rights to be restored. In my own state of Texas. the right to vote is not restored until two years after the prisoner receives a certificate of discharge. two years after completing probation. or by pardon. In other words. former prisoners in Texas do not share in the basic rights that other Texans enjoy because they must wait two years before regaining their voting rights. This situation in Texas and in many other parts of the country is fundamentally wrong. Citizens should not be deprived of the right to vote once they have paid their debt to society in full. Allow me to share with you that in Texas I am coordinating with Yvonne Davis and Terry Hodge. Texas state representatives and members of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus. an effort to reach out to individuals who have been released from incarceration. The effort will involve enlisting voter education groups to reach out to these individuals and public service announcements to encourage these individuals to register and to vote on November 7th. This effort was launched in early August. It will remind individuals that although they lost many of their rights while incarcerated. they are again fullfledged Americans who have the same rights as their fellow citizens to help elect leaders who will shape the future direction of this country.
Date: 2000-10-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2941. introduced by Mr. KOLBE. would establish a new national conservation area (NCA) in southeastern Arizona. near Tucson. The area consists of hills. grasslands and marshes along a stretch of Cienega Creek. Left unaddressed. this area is likely to succumb to urban sprawl. At the hearing on H.R. 2941. Interior Secretary Babbitt testified in general support a conservation designation for the area. However. there were a significant number of problems with the language of the bill that the Secretary and others elaborated on. Between the hearing and mark up of the legislation there were discussions among the majority and minority staffs. as well as BLM staff and the bill sponsor on changes that could be made to the bill to make it an acceptable proposal. We appreciate the fact that the bill reported by - the Resources Committee made many positive changes to the bill. However. in one instance the reported bill represented a step backward rather than a step forward. We did not support the language in the Committee bill as it pertains to grazing. This language had the effect of according grazing a higher status than it has under current law. While the revised bill had many good features to it. on grazing it fell short. I am pleased that the- version of the bill made in order today under the Rule includes provisions that address the problem with the grazing language of the Committeereported bill. The new language provides for environmentally sustainable grazing on appropriate lands within the conservation area. As such. this language will be consistent with the protection of the important resource values of the area. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work of Representative KOLBE and his staff in addressing this important matter. I will be supporting H.R. 2941 with this new language and urge my colleagues to do likewise. "
Date: 2000-10-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. earlier this week the House passed the Department of Interior appropriations conference report for the year 2001 by an overwhelming margin. Many of the votes for that legislation were the result of an historic commitment of funds to efforts to preserve our national resources. including parks and other public lands. wildlife. endangered species. forest programs and others. We are providing this support through a new $1.6 billion Lands fund because of the severe underfunding of resource programs over the past decade that have led to a deterioration of the environment and the recreational opportunities for tens of millions of Americans who treasure their national parks. wilderness areas. coasts and other public lands. No program has been more unjustifiably undermined than the Urban Parks and Recreation Program known as UPARR. UPARR is a vital program that provides on a matching basis relatively small grants to towns and cities throughout America to try and provide some expanded recreational opportunities to children who have very few alternative recreational opportunities. Across this country. there are dozens of towns and cities where baseball fields are overgrown. soccer fields are short of equipment. gyms and courts are unusable. and every day tens of thousands of children pass by those vacant and useless playgrounds and gyms and have to find something to do after school and in their evening hours. These are the children who fall prey to crime and drugs and gangs and inappropriate sexual activity that place these children and their futures in jeopardy. UPARR answers a terrible need for these children in their communities. And yet. for the past decade. UPARR has been denied funding by the Congress. Even though dozens of cities and towns filed applications and were prepared to raise the matching funds. the Congress refused to provide even minimal funding for UPARR. despite all the statements. of concern about childrens wellbeing and about the need for after school athletics and mentoring programs. For the past several years. I have been working with a wide range of organizations to fund the UPARR program. I want to pay special tribute to Tom Cove. the Vice President of the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. who has spent so much of his time helping to build a network of people outside of Washington on behalf of UPARRs revival and who has been so successful here in the Congress and the administration in persuading people of this vital program.
Date: 2000-10-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this measure. and I am delighted that we have found an acceptable vehicle to attach a provision to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This is an area that deserves continued attention in our country. and we must continue to spread the word to reduce the violence that occurs every day against American women. The agreement in H.R. 3244 will fund programs to combat violence against women. including muchneeded battered womens shelters and services. sexual assault prevention programs and education and training for judges. Unfortunately. this is a problem that continues to be prevalent in my area and has an impact on the entire community. However. H.R. 3244 goes a long way toward curbing the violence that affects women victims by assuring access to free shelters. Hopefully. this bill will continue as a positive step to reduce the overall domestic violence that plagues our communities.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to support this measure and to pay tribute to the gentlewoman from California and the gentlewoman from North Carolina for taking the lead and for the rest of the women in the bipartisan Womens Caucus. Many taxpayers dollars went into the discovery and the security of having diagnostic and treatment modalities for cervical and breast cancer. Yet we have seen a number of working women. lowincome women without health insurance coverage not be able to get treatment simply because they cannot afford it. Yet some of their tax dollars went into the real arrival of these answers that we have today. I stand here as a cancer survivor because of these diagnostic and treatment modalities. My grandmother was a victim. So I do know what it is like to be told not only of a family member but be told myself that I have cancer. and to have access to getting treatment. I would hope that the gentleman from Oklahoma would understand that we do not want to delay this measure any longer in going to get the Presidents signature so that women can have access to this treatment. I do not believe that he would want to do that. I understand the seriousness of that virus. I too am a health professional. I am a registere4 nurse and understand the real importance of early diagnosis and treatment. Far too long we have waited for this to become law. and I hope we will wait no longer.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say to the gentleman from New York that I could not agree with him more. It is rather tragic at a time now when we see the great peril that the Middle East is again embroiled in as the peace negotiations falter and the acts of violence are currently playing themselves out. and we think that if at the end of the Iraqi war if we had made a commitment that we would not ever again put ourselves in a position where we had to send American soldiers in the pursuit of oil or to protect the Kuwaiti fields or to protect the Saudi Arabia fields. or what have you. that we would have pursued this vast array of alternatives that the Vice President has been talking about almost his entire public life. that we could have. in fact. pursued alternatives in energy consumption. in conseivation. in technologies that would have. in fact. really made us independent and insulated us in these kinds of situations. But. in fact. we chose to go another route. And that was massive increases in consumption. the failure to go for the efficiencies. the failure to recognize what was readily available on the market and use that here domestically or to sell it overseas. And yet. even now we continue to see the other side of the aisle and Governor Bush suggesting. if we just had one more drilling of oil. The fact is we have increased the production of oil in America over the last 10 years rather dramatically. The hottest oil play in the world is the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies have spent tens of billions of dollars to be able to go in and to drill there. and it has obviously been worth their while. It is a fantastic find because of new technologies in that field. But it has not made us any more independent. It has not made us any more independent. It has continued the addiction that we have had to foreign oil. And so. rather than get our house in shape here and get our country in shape as the gentleman has suggested and as the Vice President has suggested over the last decade. we have done just the opposite. we have made ourselves more dependent. And like any other addiction. it is very difficult to break. But we ought to stop it at this point and recognize the peril it places us in internationally. the peril it places our economy in. and the unneeded expenditures by Americans for energy that is not necessarily simply because of the waste that is involved. That was clearly one of the choices that was presented in the debate last night about whether or not we embrace this in terms of the future and in terms of the knowledge that we now have about energy efficiencies. conservations and technologies or whether we just say. "Lets go back to what we were doing in Pennsylvania at the turn of the century and just put another hole in the ground." It is wonderful to get the oil. but it does not relieve the dependence and there is no indication that it ever will relieve the dependence unless. in fact. we go to these new technologies. I just want to thank the gentleman for making that point.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

When 70 percent of the import is for transportation. we deny the fact that readily available today at these market prices. with no compromise in safety. speed or technology. a car is available. you can get 35 miles to the gallon. Not a big push from where we are today. but a dramatic change in our consumption pattern and our independence. if -you will. That could just be done today with essentially no sacrifice being made. Not a dramatic runup in the price of an automobile. not a dramatic compromise in the safety for you or your families and your comfort or anything else. It is available today.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Those vehicles could be made here with no change. The difference is that all the advances that we have made on engine efficiency. the dramatic increases that we have made in efficiencies of the internal combustion engine have been loaded up with weight so that you can drive a bigger and a heavier car rather than returning the benefit to the economy. to the consumer and to the environment. We just decided we would take all the improvement and we would negate it by putting 9.000 pounds on top of it. So here we get what the industry said they could do. what many of us in the Congress wanted them to do. what the environment needs them to do. and then we just larded it up. So rather than driving an ordinary car. we took all those benefits and just put them in. if you will. to style. That is costing the American consumer a huge amount of money. a huge amount of money for no real benefit at all.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

It is all there. It is there. But obviously when we suggest to them that they can do this voluntarily. just like when George Bush suggested to all those old polluters in Texas to just do it voluntarily. they chose to do it another way. They chose to do it to maximize profit and forget the public interest. forget the needs to clean up the environment. forget the air quality. forget the economy of people who are reaching into their pocket to pay $2 for gasoline in a car that is getting them 20 miles to the gallon when. in fact. they could be getting 35 with none of these tradeoffs. It could be done here. it could be done with American labor. They are the best autoworkers in the world. That is not even a contest. But it is not being done because huge. huge cars now are cash cows for the automobile companies and that is more important to them than the public safety. the enviionment. household incomes. expenses or our dependency on foreign oil.