macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1999-05-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentlewoman very much for her remarks and think she makes a very important point. It is highly unlikely that we will have this kind of common sense gun legislation to help protect our children. to help protect our communities from the easily accessible and irresponsible ownership of guns. if the American people do not call their Members of Congress and insist upon it. Over the last couple of weeks as I have been out in the public in my district and talking to groups and just being on the streets of my district. people have come to me and asked time and again: Why can you not do this and do it now? When they saw the Senate not do it. they were infuriated. and the Senate doubled back and took a new vote and then came in line with what the American people wanted. Then the Senate doubled back a second time and came in line with what the American people wanted. But apparently the Republican leadership in this House and the NRA are going to delay this legislation. fully understanding that delay is the enemy of legislation. that you get it jammed up at the end of the session against a recess. against the appropriations bills. and this starts to fall through the cracks. and it is nobodys fault and it is everybodys fault. We need the American people to call the Republican leadership. to call their Members of Congress and tell them that these three or four measures. very common sensical measures. should be passed and should be passed immediately. They could. if in fact the leadership wanted to do it. be passed before we leave for Memorial Day. They are having a hearing on the day we leave town. because then they are hoping for a week where there will not be any discussion of this measure and there will not be a sense of urgency about the American people to have Congress address this when we come back. and pretty soon we will find ourselves addressing it in September or October. It is the oldest legislative strategy in this town. just delay and delay. Already we see Members that are supporters of the NRA going around the floor with checklists from the NRA trying to line up their support. who they have given their contributions to. will they stand tough on this. That is why they want the time. They want the time to kill this bill. not to give it great general consideration but to kill these ideas that have passed overwhelmingly in the Senate of the United States. I would hope that people would heed your call for them to call Members of Congress and ask them to pass these child gun safety measures that have been passed by the Senate. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Date: 1999-05-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank very much the gentlewoman for her remarks. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me in this special order to try and urge the Republican leadership to pass this week the common sense gun safety provisions that have passed the Senate of the United States. We do so with the full understanding that the problems and the tragedies in Littleton or in Georgia or in Oregon or in Kentucky and other such States where young people have taken up guns and assaulted and killed their classmates and their friends. that that problem will not be addressed solely with the questions of gun safety legislation. But clearly in each of these cases or most of these cases. what we find is the easy access of young children. in some cases disturbed young children with the irresponsible possession of guns in the home. We believe that trigger locks will help increase the margin of safety in our communities. We believe that not letting young people go into gun shows or people go into gun shows on behalf of young people and with no questions asked be able to buy a gun. a gun they could not buy if they went into a gun shop. They could not do that. They would have to undergo that check. We urge the leadership to pass these common sense gun safety measures. I yield to the gentleman from Guam.
Date: 1999-05-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. these three measures that have passed the Senate are the beginning step in that area. so I want to thank my colleagues who joined me in this special order. I plead with the American public to call their Member of Congress. to call the Republican leadership. ask them to schedule these gun safety measures as soon as possible. to do it this week. We have a relatively clear calendar. It can all be passed and wrapped up before we go home for the Memorial Day break.
Date: 1999-05-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.
Date: 1999-05-26
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is interesting. I have listened to all the speeches. and I can tell the Members that we do have a number of issues that are pressing that we need to address. Gun violence certainly is one we need to address. and not just talk about the issue. but also talk about what it takes to correct it. We are correcting the Chinese situation because it was discovered. and it is being addressed in this administration. It has been going on for 20 years. I rise today to talk about another issue of great concern to the flying public. We hope we can address it soon. and not look up 20 years and find all of these planes are crashing that are connecting with ours. It is called international codesharing agreements. Code sharing agreements are agreements between air carriers. most often a U.S. carrier and a foreign flag carrier. whereby the U.S. carrier can sell seats on the other carriers flight while identifying it as their own. What this means in an international market is that while the passengers ticket may say he or she is flying on a U.S. carrier overseas. in reality it is an overseas flight. and they do not meet the same safety standards. I will continue to work to get this issue addressed.
Date: 1999-05-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. my parliamentary inquiry is. the vote that is before us is the adjournment resolution. Does the passage of this resolution mean that we will not be able to address the school violence issue before we adjourn?
Date: 1999-05-26
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I have a parliamentary inquiry. McDermott The SPEAKER pro tempore. The genMollohan tleman will state it. RosLehtinen Roukema Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Salmon Sandlin Sanford Saxton Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simpson Sisisky Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baird Baldacci Baldwin Barcia Barrett (WI) Becerra Bentsen Berkley Berman Berry Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Bonior Borski Brady (PA) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Capps Capuano Cardin Carson Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Condit Conyers Coyne Crowley Cummings Davis (FL) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutsch Dicks Dixon Doggett Dooley Doyle Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Ford Frank (MA) Frost Geidenson Gephardt Gonzalez Skeen Skelton Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stump Sununu Sweeney Talent Tancredo Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas NAYS178 Gutierrez Hastings (FL) Hill (IN) Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hoeffel Holden Holt Hooley Hoyer Inslee Jackson (IL) JacksonLee (TX) Jefferson John Johnson. E. B. Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kleczka Klink Kucinich LaFalce Lantos Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lofgren Lowey Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Martinez Mascara Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McDermott McGovern McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Menendez MillenderMcDonald Miller. George Minge Mink Moakley Mollohan Moore Moran (VA)
Date: 1999-06-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. as introduced. H.R. 150 had significant problems. The bill would have amended the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to provide for the transfer of national forest lands to local education entities for use as elementary and secondary schools. including public charter schools. At the Committee on Resources hearing on H.R. 150. the administration testified in opposition to the bill. While they supported the objective of making Federal lands available in certain circumstances for public purposes. they testified that the legislation was burdensome. One of the problems with the bill was that the Recreation and Public Purposes Act was designed to apply to public lands only. H.R. 150 tried to shoehorn national forest lands into that law and it was not a very good fit. The problem was not only with using the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. but also the fact that the bill sponsor was seeking waivers or changes to the normal requirements of land conveyances. We skould not be setting different requirements for school lands than applied to public lands used for hospitals or other public purposes. Further. we had no definition of a public charter school and. as such. we did not know what such use would entail. During the Committee on Resources consideration of H.R. 150. an amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted and made substantial improvements to this legislation. As reported by the. Committee on Resources. the bill is now a freestanding measure that provides discretionary authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to make available certain national forest system lands at nominal cost to qualifying entities for use as elementary and secondary schools and related facilities. The bill requires that in order to make such a conveyance. the Secretary must determine that. one. the land will be used for the intended purposes. two. that the conveyance will serve the public interest. three. that the land to be conveyed is not otherwise needed for the national forest system. and four. the total acreage to be conveyed does not exceed the amount reasonably necessary for the proposed use. In any event. the conveyance is limited to 80 acres. and the mineral rights are reserved to the United States. In addition. the committee amendment includes the reverter clause that would be applicable if the lands were to be used. without consent of the Secretary. for use other than the use for which the lands were not conveyed. Mr. Chairman. H.R. 150. as amended by the Committee on Resources. is a significant improvement from the bill as it was introduced. Although the administration objects to the bill because the lands are authorized to be conveyed for less than full cost. I do not think that what the bill provides in this case is unreasonable. given the discretionary nature of the bill and the public interests being served. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1999-06-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. as I said before. we do not deny the bill has been. we believe. substantially improved with the substitute. as proposed. to the bill. as amended. We have no problem with this. I would say I do not think this bill is going to solve the education problems in this country. There is much for this Congress to do. While we are happy to help pass this legislation. we wish that the majority would get on with the rest of the agenda that the people in this country want with respect to schools. and clearly part of that is to protect our students and schools from violence. We wish that before the break you had taken up the legislation dealing with background checks at gun shows. child safety locks. and other measures to try to prevent the easy access and irresponsible access of young people to guns that have played out in the tragic incidents. oft too often. in this country. We appreciate that this legislation may impact 40. 50. maybe 60. 70 districts that may have access to some lands. but there are millions of students thaL are in schools that are crumbling. that are not ready for the next century. that have not been wired. .and we really think that the Federal Government ought to participate in helping. whether.it is through the Tax Code or whether through loans or grants. to rebuilding some of -these crumbling schools in America that are both urban and rural so that children can have a decent setting in which to learn and in which knowledge -can be conveyed and can be acquired by these children. So this is an interesting piece of legislation. but it falls far short of what the country expects out of this Congress with respect to the childrens educationin this Nation. And we would hope at some point. since we are only working a couple of hours a week around here. that we would find time to address that legislation and deal with the issue of revitalizing the infrastructure of education in this country. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1999-06-15
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. let me express my appreciation to our ranking member and to our chairman for the careful work that has been orchestrated in this bill. I rise in opposition to the GRAHAM amendment. and rise in strong support of Air 21 and especially the provision raising the passenger facility charge cap from $3 to $6. This provision complements Air 21s prime focus to ensure that our aviation system receives the funding it needs to be safe. efficient and able to meet its needs as we enter the new millennium. All of us want to have safe planes and I do not think there is anyone here who would work for anything less than that. Also. in my particular area. our DallasFort Worth airport has been the economic beacon for that entire area. We simply do not have the dollars in any other way but to continue to try to get the assistance of this fund for the expansions and improvements that are needed. By paying a price equal to the cost of a. cup of coffee in a terminal. each passenger flying out of an airport can help make that airport faster. safer. and stronger. Instead of making everyone pay for these improvements. the PFCs charge only those people who use and benefit from the airport. The PFC provision provides flexibility to airports in using- the PFCs for airport expansions and improvements. The provision in AIR21 allows airports to use PFCs in the construction of gates and related areas. which is defined to include the basic shell of terminal buildings. This will allow airports to use the PFC funds to finance expansion projects. which will increase competition and reduce congestion at our Nations busiest airports. Further. this provision -gives local officials the ability to use funds generated by local airports to build terminals at that particular airport. This. in conjunction with Federal aviation planning. will bring us fully into the 21st century. Raising the cap on PFCs give airports flexibility in revenue -production. For example. I have the pleasure of representing part of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. DIFWs customers would receive great benefds if the PFC cap were raised. The tax on aviation fuel. which is traditionally passed on to the passenger. is part of the aviation funding system. For every dollar D/FW customers pay in aviation fuel taxes. D/FW receives 11 cents in Airport Improvement Program funds. In contrast. for every dollar in PFCs paid by D/FW customers. D/FW Airport receives 97 cents. PFCs are the most costeffective way for airports to make improvements to benefit those who use the airport. Mr. Chairman. PFCs make a difference. This attempt to strip the PFC provisions is shortsighted and politically motivated. I urge my colleagues to look toward the future. I urge my colleagues to look at PFCs in context and see that this minimal charge makes a world of difference. Please vote against the amendment.
Date: 1999-06-16
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. this is a place in America where debate is supposed to be the freest and the most open. This is the place where the first amendment protects all speech made on the floor of the Congress. and yet we find each and every time that we come next to it. to an important issue that confronts our country. in this case. the safety and the future of our children. the role of violence in our society and the future. the future of this country. and the increased violence in our society. we see the Republicans once again want to close down debate. want to limit free and open debate. want to limit the amendments. not make in order amendments that they are afraid might pass. That should not be the hallmark of the Congress of the United States. but unfortunately the Republicans have decided Phat they will .let the NRA. the National Rifle Association. design this debate. design the amendments. say what amendments will be in order and what amendments will not be in order. They have chosen to side with the NRA against free and open debate. As my colleagues know. this is the House of Congress which this year has mastered working 2 and 3 days a week. 1 and 2 hours a day. but now we are told that all of this has to happen in a very brief period of time without free and open debate. It is a travesty again the first amendment. and it is a travesty against the Members of this House.
Date: 1999-06-16
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I respect the fact that there are Members who have come to this floor arguing the Constitution on a juvenile crime bill because they see no other hope for them or for the children of America. And I would simply say to the gentleman from Alabama . although I respect his desires and his appreciation for the Ten Commandments. it is important to hold in high regard the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution requires that we establish no religion. The gentleman from Georgia has asked. "When in Gods name." Well. the gentleman has the Ten Commandments. and I would hope that wherever the gentleman from Georgia goes he offers to those who will hear him his belief in the Ten Commandments. And that is what we need to give our children in America. the opportunity for them to choose their beliefs. For this to be allowed. if the gentleman is attaching it to the juvenile crime bill. he must be saying. put the Ten Commandments in our schools. Well. in our schools. as evidenced by the statement of the Secretary of Education. that I wish the gentleman from Colorado would have offered. we allow our students to express themselves. no matter what their religion is. They can gather voluntarily and pray to their respective gods. If they want to acknowledge the Ten Commandments. do so. and I support them in doing so. I happen to believe in the Seventh Day Sabbath. but if someone does not agree with that. then they have every right to not be forced to do so. I would say. Mr. Chairman. that the Constitution is violated by that amendment. and I would ask It be defeated.
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. if the gentlewoman will yield. I thank the gentlewoman. I think that conversation and responsibility also has to take place in our families. That conversation has to take place.
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. ScorT) for all of their hard work in pulling this legislation together. I want to thank them for accepting the language that the gentlewoman from New. Jersey
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the amendment that the gentleman from Colorado is offering. I would hope that it would not be necessary. and maybe he can withdraw it. . I say it for this reason. The study that he cites from the Center on the Prevention of Violence. and I think it is actually in Denver. -Colorado. has gone through a number of these programs that we have authorized and ampropriated money for over the last several years. I think the study draws the right conclusions. We are spending a lot of money on a lot of programs that have not been properly tested. that politically are quite popular.
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the provisions in this bill proposed by several of my Democratic colleagues dealing with gun safety. especially the McCarthy amendment. These provisions are commonsense solutions that will get guns out of the wrong hands. Children are too easily able to get guns. either from gun shows or from their own homes. Convicted felons and people with outstanding warrants can walk into any gun show and walk stall to stall until they find a dealer willing to sell them a gun with no questions asked. These problems are too severe to be ignored. This is not gun control. this is gun safety. We are not trying to control guns. we are trying to control the environment of rising youth violence. I come from Texas. and I can tell you that people in Texas raise a big ruckus whenever they think that we in Washington are trying to take their guns away. I am not worried about responsible adults who have guns legally and use them wisely. I am worried about their children. who do not have the capacity to make responsible choices about firearms. getting their hands on guns. Selling a trigger lock with every new weapon makes weapons safer for children. This does not mean that parents can abdicate their responsibility when they purchase guns. But. trigger locks will cut down on accidental shootings and will make it harder for children to use firearms in a fit of rage. We need to conduct background checks on gun show purchasers and we cannot rest on the watered down language the NRA supports. Gun shows are the easiest way for criminals and children to get guns illegally. Lets stop the practice now. Legitimate buyers need not worry. so why does the NRA oppose this? Who knows? Stop attacking common sense and support the language taken exactly from the Senate passed Juvenile Justice bill. Finally. we need to raise the legal age to purchase a handgun from 18 to 21. These provisions all make sense and are needed now. Stop letting children and criminals get guns. Pass these provisions. I yield back the balance of my time.