macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. we are very proud of the legislation being brought forth today by the Committee on Appropriations. I know that the chairman. the gentleman from Kentucky . worked long and hard on this bill and deserves commendation by all of us as well as all the other Members that have worked so hard on thislegislation. Mr. Speaker. there are $29.4 billion in this underlying legislation for the Department of Homeland Security. That includes $4.4 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness. Now. the resources that the Congress is appropriating for the Office of Domestic Preparedness constitutes an increase of 1.400 percent for that critically important issue since September 11. 2001. The Congress is doing its job. I think all of us should and I am sure do praise the work of the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security. that has permitted them to bring forth this legislation. There is a very important initiative of the many new initiatives to protect the Nation that is being funded by this legislation. the Container Security Initiative. so that commerce. trade that we see in all the ports of America. those containers sent from abroad. that they be inspected before they leave the ports that they come from so that the security of the Nation 4s significantly augmented in that fashion. That Container Security Initiative is funded in this bill. There are many other reasons why we should pass this legislation. I feel very proud of the underlying legislation and the fact that we are moving forward to increase the security of the American people. I urge support for the underlying legislation and this totally fair. open rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. FROST is as follows:
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2555. the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This important legislation provides $30.4 billion in funding for the upcoming year. $1 billion over the Administrations request. including $4.4 billion for grants to the police. firefighter and emergency medical personnel that are on the front lines of our nations homeland preparedness and emergency response. In addition. I am pleased to see in this legislation a timeline to expedite the allocation of these resources within 120 days of passage of this Act. We have heard today. Mr. Chairman. and will continue to hear that there are simply not enough funds Included in this bill to achieve our goal of making our homeland secure. The fact. however. is that to date the federal govemment has spent $20.8 billion for our nations first responders. and we will continue to fund what is necessary to ensure they have the training. equipment and resources necessary to do their job. We in this House know full well that money spend does not simply translate into increased preparedness. This in only a start. and we must continue to be vigilant in not only appropriating adequate funds. but ensuring that these funds are administered strategically as part of a comprehensive plan to address our nations vulnerabilities and needs. We must remember that while the Department of Homeland Security develops our national homeland security strategy. the implementation and the ultimate success of that strategy rests with our state and local governments. In closing. Mr. Chairman. the protection of the American citizens is the first and foremost duty of the federal government. and this Congress will continue to work with the Administration. and our states and localities to this end. This bill is a solid next step for our nations emergency preparedness and response capabilities and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I raise a point of order against the gentlemans amendment because it proposes to .impose new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Actually. this amendment would radically change the current application of the Buy American Act from 50 percent to include products made in America even if most of the cost of the components. up to 65 percent. are produced domestically. This substantially increases the 50 percent test as provided in the current regulations. Some companies have responded to the current Buy American Act restrictions by establishing costly. laborintensive producttracking systems that are not needed in the commercial business to ensure that the products are being sold to government. In a few cases. companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the Federal marketplace. This denies our government access to some of the latest. most costeffective products in our fight against terrorism and preserving homeland security. This radical Buy American Act if it were allowed to be part of this legislation would impose financial and legal burdens on taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the Department. I would. therefore. insist on my point of order.
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

I do. Mr. Chairman. Again. I make the point of order because it proposes to impose new duties and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and violates clause 2(c) of House rule XXI.
Date: 2003-06-24
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. later than the end of fiscal year 2004. the Chairman. I move to strike the last Secretary shall transmit to Congress and the word. Administrator of the Federal Aviation AdI rise in support of the gentlemans ministration a report containing the results point of order. This amendment would of the review. apply a radical domestic source restric- Ms. WATERS tion to the acquisition of main propul- Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consion diesel engines for use in Coast sent that the amendment be considered Guard vessels. and my friend from as read and printed in the RECORD. Michigan just said. in the middle of the The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection game. It could delay this procurement. to the request of the gentlewoman This could have a devastating effect from California? on the Coast Guards ability to buy the There was no objection. best propulsion engines at reasonable Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chaircost to support its critical antiterror man. I reserve a point of order on the missions because it takes competition amendment. out of the picture. Restrictive provi- The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman sions such as these run counter to ef- from California is recogforts to create an open. flexible. re- nized for 5 minutes. sponsive. and impartial competitive ac- Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman. *if the quisition system that will enable all gentleman from Wisconsins government agencies. including the amendment had been accepted. there Coast Guard. to acquire from the world would be no need for my amendment. market the best products available at His amendment did what I think needfair and reasonable prices. Indeed. we ed to be done in order to make our owe our taxpayers nothing less than to Homeland Security Department real. get the best value for the taxpayer dol- The gentleman from Wisconsins (Mr. lar as we buy these. and this amend- OBEY) amendment would have shored ment abrogates that Buy America Act up what we say we want to do by approvisions apply here. - propriating $1 billion to improve aviaIt has been reiterated here by the tion security. maritime security. infragentleman from North Carolina (Mr. structure security. and border security HAYES) that this amendment would im- and port security. pose substantially new duties on the Now. it seems to me if this adminisDepartment. and because of that I be- tration was serious about homeland selieve it also violates House rule XXI. curity. we would not hear these weak and I want to applaud the gentleman arguments that we arehearing on the for raising the point of order and sup- floor tonight. It is absolutely amazing port it. that the people on the other side of the POINT OF ORDER aisle. my colleagues on the other side
Date: 2003-06-25
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it. is my distinct pleasure and truly an honor this morning to welcome to the United States House of Representatives my friend. Father Michael Greer. Michael Greer is truly a wonderful human being and our community in South Florida is so very privileged that he lives and works with US. Father Greer has been a teacher of theology. He possesses extraordinary academic credentials. with degrees in theological and liturgical studies from various institutions of higher learning. including the University of Notre Dame in South Bend. Indiana. Father Greers hometown. Father Greer has taught at the St. Vincent De Paul Seminary and Florida International University. But most of all Michael Greer has become known and beloved in our community by and through his work as the pastor of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Miami for the last 16 years. The Good Shepherd community has flourished during Father Greers years there. Love. compassion and mercy toward our fellow human beings are not only practiced at Good Shepherd. their presence there is perceived by our entire diverse community. Michael Greer does not only believe in diversity. he lives it each day in his work. including his constant visits to the sick and his masses. in English. Spanish and Creole. Good Shepherd now has a wonderful school. also. We are privileged today to have the presence as well of the schools distinguished principal. Dr. Maria Elena Lopez. Mr.. Speaker. the Congress of the United States is honored today by the visit of a humble and great man. Father Michael Greer of Miami.
Date: 2003-06-25
Speaker: GINNY BROWN-WAITE (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. it is with great disappointment that I cannot be present today to speak and vote in favor of H.R. 1511. a bill to award Prime Minister Tony Blair the Congressional Gold Medal. I introduced this legislation on March 31 and have since been working with my colleagues to obtain the necessary 290 cosponsors for floor action. I would like to commend Chairman OXLEY and the Financial Services Committee. as well as Rep. RICHARD BAKER and Rep. CAROLYN MALONEY for their tireless efforts in getting this bill to the floor today. As we emerge successfully from Operation Iraqi Freedom. it is important to remember that we did not fight this war alone. The brave men and women of the British military have fought and died. side by side. with our American soldiers. Just yesterday. 6 British soldiers were killed in an attack north of Basra. Great Britain. under the leadership of Tony Blair. has paid the ultimate sacrifice. Prime Minister Blair has ignored political expediency and risked his own career to stand up for what he knows is right. Operation Iraqi Freedom has freed millions of Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam Husseins brutal dictatorship. The Operation has ousted a regime bent on securing and then distributing weapons of mass destruction to those who would use them against the United. States. our friends. and the people of Iraq. Despite attempts by many of our "allies" to thwart this noble effort. Prime Minister Blair and Great Britain have remained strong and active players in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I am deeply honored to play a role in awardIng Prime Minister Tony Blair the Congressiofal Gold Medal and I thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives for joining me.
Date: 2003-06-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague. Can she confirm that the language in H.R. 1 includes plans under the Federal Employee Retirement Plan as an employment base plan?
Date: 2003-06-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

This will allow OPM to take advantage of the subsidies in the bill just as other employees and unions will?
Date: 2003-06-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the gentlewomans and the chairmans willingness to work with us on this issue. I think that allowing the subsidies H.R. 1 provides for will result in lower premiums and improved benefits for all FEHBP enrollees.
Date: 2003-06-26
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. as I said. I appreciate the willingness of the gentlewoman to clarify that. I have another concern. that Federal employees are often treated differently from current Federal employees in ways that are not always equitable. Retirees are different from current Federal employees. For example. current employees are allowed to pay their health insurance premiums from pretax dollars. i-.deral retirees are not. FEHBP currently does not provide different benefits for retirees and current employees. One is simply a member of FEHBP. I think it is important that this dynamic remain once a Medicare prescription drug benefit is put into place. whichever plan passes. As chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. I look at this from an employers perspective. We do not want private employers to drop the prescription drug coverage they provide for their retirees. H.R. 1 provides incentives so that they will not do so. but we as the Federal Government have to lead by example. I have introduced legislation that simply states that Federal retirees will continue to be treated on par with current Federal employees when it comes to prescription benefits. I regret we were unable to include this language in H.R. 1. but I am grateful to have the commitment of the Speaker and the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor as soon as we return from recess.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to provide that the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered to Medicare eligible enrollees by a plan under the Federal employees health benefits program shall be at least equal to the actuarial value of the prescription drug benefits offered by such plan to its enrollees generally.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo ANN DAVIS). chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2631. a bill that has a simple. yet powerful. purpose: to protect the health benefits of our valued Federal retirees. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. along with my distinguished colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia. One of the hallmarks of Federal- service has been the governments commitment to providing. health care for its retired employees. those public servants who dedicated their professional careers to protecting our shores. fighting disease. keeping our air and water clean. and upholding the laws of the land. We not only owe them our thanks. we owe it to them to keep our commitments. As the chairwoman of the House Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Civil Service. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman TOM DAVIS) for sponsoring this legislation and thank the leadership for allowing us to bring this important bill to the floor so quickly. H.R. 2631 guarantees that Federal retirees will have a prescription drug benefit that is equal in value to the one provided to active Federal employees. This legislation fulfills the promise of the Federal Government not to eliminate prescription drug coverage to its retirees once a prescription drug benefit is also available through Medicare. which the U.S. House of Representatives has wisely decided to add. This bill also ensures that there is no difference between the total amount of coverage offered to active employees and the coverage available to retirees. This is an important equity. one that we want to maintain. I want to emphasize that this legislation does not diminish the Office of Personnel Managements authority to negotiate health care benefits for Federal employees. but assures that drug benefits will still be available for retirees. Finally. this is a case of the Federal Government leading by example. If the U.S. Government were to cut benefits for its retirees. why would we expect the private sector to act any differently? I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman DAVIS) for bringing this legislation to the floor. and I urge passage of H.R. 2631.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia . a cosponsor of this legislation and a leader in the fight for Federal employees rights.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I would like to help the gentleman solve the puzzle. The fact of the matter is there *are 1.25 million Medicareeligible Federal employees and annuitants. Only 388 retired Members of Congress are in FEHBP. The majority of retired Members of Congress do not even take FEHBP. They are in other plans or have opted out of this. The fact is they are eligible for that by virtue of their service here. This legislation was not crafted by Members looking after themselves. It was crafted with the help of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. It was difficult to write out the 388 retired Members who happen to use this. which is a minority of the retired Members. Most Members do not use FEHBP. I want to clarify for the gentleman that in no way. shape or form was this for Members. In fact. this was called to our attention by the National Association of Retired Federal Employees. I do not know any other way to get at the problem.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. all it does is ensures that Federal retirees will be treated the same as current Federal employees in regard to the Federal Employee Health Benefit plan. Currently. they are not in some areas. The feeling is that with this other plan. that retirees could have a different benefit program and that creates some difficulty. So we are trying to even this up and give that assurance. Most Members of Congross do not opt for FEHBP. That is what. the record shows after this is done. So that is kind of a misnomer. It. is a small percentage that ends up in FEHBP when they retire. A few do. I grant to the gentleman. but that is not the purpose. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that The New York Times chart is absolutely wrong when it says Federal employees have no deductible for their prescription drug coverage. What they get is. they get a set amount of dollars. and it is a cafeteria style. They can spend it on prescription drugs. preventive care. HMOs or whatever. So there is certainly a cost to that. But the way the system is set up. it is a total health care program. So when the gentleman gets up and quotes this New York Times article. it is entirely misleading. Of course there is a cost to Federal employees opting for that over something else. The other underlying part of the bill that this body passed 2 weeks ago Is the fact that we did not want to drive private programs out of existence. Should we drive the 60 percent of seniors that are currently satisfied with their prescription drug program out of existence. then the Federal Government ends up picking up the total tab. and the cost rises significantly. We are setting an example with this legislation that we are. in fact. making sure that the FEHBP program is not driven out of existence. that we maintain the parity it has always had with existing Federal employees. And this program ought not be diminished. It is the same thing that we have incentivized in the program passed 2 weeks ago by the subsidies that are in that program as well. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. and let me just say in all candor that we have 1.25 million FEHBP employees covered by this. with 388 former Members of Congress. The vast majority of former Members do not even sign up for FEHBP. those who would be eligible for the plan passed by this body 2 weeks ago. and do not even use FEHBP. which is a more comprehensive option for retired Federal employees. including Members of * Congress. So this really has nothing to do with Members of Congress. The other question I pose is. why. when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle controlled this body for 40 years. did they not bring up any prescription drug benefit plan before this body for avote? We have passed plans now the last 3 years. only this time has the Senate passed a plan as well. and we are giving meaningful relief to seniors who want it. It is a voluntary plan. It is not a perfect plan by any means. but it is within the budget limitations passed by this Congress. Their plan was outside the budget limitations. I think we have to get real. I think we have a good deal for Americans in the plan that we passed 2 weeks ago. As we work with the Senate. we will try to rbfine it.and make it better. I think this legislation today makes it better as well. recognizing that as we look at our Federal workforce. trying to make sure we have the right incentives to attract and retain the best and the brightest to fight for homeland security. to fight the battles for this country. to develop cures for cancer. that we are treating our employees well. So I am very proud to support this legislation. I think it enhances and goes with the underlying theme of the legislation passed 2 weeks ago. and that is we do not want to drive current prescription drug benefit plans out of existence. which. if we do not pass this. we will be setting a terribld example here at the Federal level. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume to say two things. This vaunted Senate bill that passed a couple of weeks ago. Senator AKAKA has also offered legislation in the Senate for their legislation as well. I think whatever happens under whoevers bill that passes. we want to ensure that we do not get that separation between the retired Federal employees and current employees in their health benefit premiums. and that is what this bill is about. We had a spirited debate 2 weeks ago on a health benefit plan. and I do not think we need to continue to air this today. But I think this is good legislation. it is good protection for our retired Federal employees. and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank them for the bipartisan support this bill is getting today. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita. Kansas. as the "Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building".
Date: 2003-07-08
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1761.