macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-10-08
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today and join my colleagues in our continuing desire to establish peace in the Middle East. I joined several of my Democratic colleagues this past August in a trip to Israel to see firsthand the impact that violence has had on the people of the Middle East. It seems that almost daily we turn on our television sets and read newspapers and learn about another bombIng or missile attack in the Middle East. Just this past Saturday 19 people were killed and 50 people were injured when a suicide bomber set off an explosion in a packed restaurant in Israel. My trip to Israel in August impacted me profoundly. One cannot begin to understand what it is like for the people of Israel to try to live under such conditions until one have traveled to the country and has seen it firsthand. There is a difference between understanding their situation by reading about it in the newspaper and actually being there. living it and seeing it with your own eyes. Israel is a tiny country and is practically surrounded by countries that consider Israel and Westernstyle democracy an enemy. Israel lives with the fear of attack every day. and Israeli citizens need to protect themselves and defend their homes. There are many regions of the country that the Israeli government holds on to simply because they improve the security and safety of their citizens. While I was in Israel I and my colleagues saw firsthand the construction of an enormous security fence to prevent violent attacks. Once completed. this barrier will stretch for approximately 150 miles. It is a combination of ditches. barbed wire. and electric sensors. Many people have spoken out against the fence and say that it is an obstacle to achieving peace in the region. But until you have been to Israel. you cannot possibly understand what that fence means in terms of the safety and security of women and children and civilians. I also recall during our trip being taken to border regions and being shown security footage of people trespassing over the security barriers and entering Israel without authorization. These constant dangers impact the people of Israel every day. and I was impressed with how committed the Israeli people were to protecting their country and their families in the face of so many threats. In fact. many citizens carried guns with them. ready to defend their country at a moments notice. It is easy for people outside of Israel to criticize them for carrying guns and constructing a security fence. But the fear and the danger that faces the people of Israel is real. and they must be allowed to protect themselves. Because of this danger. they alone know the best way to protect their citizens and secure their communities. Mr. Speaker. I hope that our country continues to support the government and the people of Israel. I hope that we recognize Israels right to be a sovereign nation and Israels right to protect itself. Most of all. I hope that peace comes to the people of Israel and all of the citizens of the Middle East.
Date: 2003-10-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the amendment that hopefully he will be able to offer later in this debate. It is very clear now to most Americans that the administration was planning more for war than it was for the peace after the war. The administration continued to insist that actions would be quick..easy. and inexpensive. The administration continued to tell Americans this even though they were advised otherwise. They were advised by the Council on Foreign Relations. by the James Baker Institute. the Washington Institute of Near East Policy. and the Center for Strategic International Studies. All warned of the postwar violence and the instability that would come about if we did not internationalize this effort immediately. They also warned about the inability of the oil fields to pay for this. about the special training that was going to be needed by our troops and by an international police force. about the likelihood of postwar violence and the need. again. for a specially trained police. By now. it must be clear that that advice was not taken by this administration. As a result. we were ill prepared for postwar Iraq. Soldiers were put needlessly in harms way due to poor planning and the absence of proper supplies. and a mission for which they were not trained and which was properly not theirs. They were improperly equipped for the threat that they faced. And that comes on the heels of spending $79 billion. The failures and the threats have become even worse. and they continue to grow. The threats are more sophisticated. more dangerous. We now see parties from outside Iraq entering into that. The borders are not secure. and hundreds of American soldiers have been killed and severely wounded. The administration. in fact. with this first $79 billion and its planning for postwar Iraq has failed in its duty of care it owed these soldiers and their families. Now they seek another $87 billion. How will this be different from the first $79 billion. and how can they justify the additional $45 billion to $70 billion they are coming to ask for us next? This administration has a duty to the soldiers and the taxpayers to explain how is their safety going to be enhanced. how are we going to increase the number of bulletproof vests that are necessary. the bulletproof Humvqes that are necessary. And when are we going to stop sending Guard units into this theatre with inferior equipment? It is clear to all that we simply cannot leave Iraq. It is not good for Iraq. and it is not good for the security of America. But what we must do is insist upon a plan that will bring about real international participation. force security that our soldiers are due. and a fairness to the taxpayer. But that is not this plan. and for that reason I must vote "no."
Date: 2003-10-15
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I am thrilled to see this bill on the floor of the House today to dedicate a post office in Jacksonville to Ms. Eddie Mae Steward. Eddie Mae Steward left her mark on her community in many ways. Eddie Mae Steward singlehandedly launched the effort that led to the courtordered desegregation of Duval Countys public schools. she was the first female president of the Jacksonville branch of the NAACP. and served as the State NAACP president from 1973 to 1974. She also served as the secretary of the Duval County Democratic Executive Committee. A graduate of Edward Waters College in Jacksonville. she was truly a dedicated civil rights activist. Ms. Steward was the first to take on the fight to improve the infrastructure of public schools for children in Jacksonville. One school in particular. Boylan Haven. a private school for African American girls. was described to be unfit by any standard. Ms. Steward took on the local school board. and after a threeweek battle and intense pressure from Ms. Steward and local civil rights activists. the school board decided to send the students to other area schools. Today. Eddie Mae Steward remains a tribute to those willing to undertake great risks to bring about social justice. Much like those before her who struggled against the injustice of status quo. she was referred to as a "troublemaker." However. it was fundamental fairness. strong principles. and the strength of her conviction that led her to become a visionary and courageous leader. Ms. Steward leaves six children. And I am honored to recognize Eddie Mae Steward with this post office designation. I urge support for this measure.
Date: 2003-10-15
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time. I rise today to voice my concern over the Presidents $87 billion supplemental request and the failure to plan for postconflict peacekeeping and reconstruction in Iraq. In short. the administration has failed the American people here at home and the brave men and women who are serving overseas. In the months leading up to the war. we were repeatedly told that this war would be swift. that the loss of American life would be minimal. and that the costs of the war would not impose a burden on the American taxpayer because Iraq had sufficient reserve to finance its own reconstruction. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said. There is a lot of money to pay for this that that does not have to come from U.S. taxpayers. We are dealing with a country that can really finance Its own reconstruction and relatively soon. Now. we are faced with the chilling reality that the opposite is true. Over 320 Americans lives have been lost. and guerrilla war has escalated because the administration failed to admit the scope of the challenge we have on our hands. and of course. costs are skyrocketing. If we approve this supplemental. the United States cost of war to date will reach $141 billion. Some say it could reach $237 billion. some $418 billion. but the most glaring truth is that we cannot afford to lose and that our window to win the peace is quickly shutting. We not only have a moral obligation to help rebuild Iraq. but it is in our best national interest to facilitate the transition to a stable democratic and economically selfsufficient Iraq. We should have had a plan in place 6 months ago. We should have had a clear exit strategy. We should have had coalition partners lined up and ready to go. We should have prepared our troops for the tasks we are now asking them to face. and now we have to make up for lost time. Our first priority should be to get our troops the resources they need to conplete their missions swiftly. transfer power to Iraqis and return home.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Unfortunately. domestic violence continues to be a major threat facing women of all ages. The most conservative estimate indicated that each year 2 to 4 million women are battered or beaten. and nearly 200.000 of these cases are serious enough to require hospitalization or emergency room use. While there are many support groups and organizatione dedicated to helping people of domestic violence. there are still those who would seek to undercut these services. Recently. a lawsuit was filed by the National Coalition of Free Men who claimed that 10 shelters in Southern California provided services to abused and battered women and were engaging in unlawful sex discrimination because they did not accept men at their shelters. The California Womens Law Center and the law firm of OMelveny & Meyers represented a majority of these shelters. pro bono. and successfully argued that this lawsuit had no merit. While it is important to provide services for all abused and battered persons. it is equally important that these services not be denied to those who need it the most. women and children who are the most vulnerable to these attacks.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. during the leadup to this war in Iraq. this body had great assurances from the President and his staff that in the aftermath. the United States would not be tagged with the bill. Here we are debating to commit $87 billion to this war. And this war has been described to us as fighting terrorists. Not a single terrorist has come from this area. And this really could not come at a worse time because we have no money. Our economy is the worst we have seen in 70 years. We have loat many. many jobs. Just in my area. 105.000 jobs have been lost in Dallas. Protecting our troops in Iraq. or anywhere they are. is important and necessary. But I have been to Iraq. and they are not protected. I have been to Germany to look at those who have been injured. and here. Where is the money going? There is no accountability. No accountability for the first money that has been appropriated. Now. we are asking for more. And we are financing this war in Iraq with deficit spending. We are borrowing money to pay for this war. We are not cutting spending. we are not raising taxes. If anything. we are going to see another tax break coming soon. We are endangering Social Security. Vote against this spending. We do not need another blank check being handed to the President.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by commending the Congressional Black Caucus for standing up for the troops and voting against this appalling supplemental bill. Just yesterday I visited Walter Reed Medical Center and was very impressed by our brave troops. They have done their part in fighting and risking their lives for our Nation. In addition. I talked to our men and women stationed in bases in the Caspian Sea last summer. and I was appalled to see that the female soldiers were not supplied with enough personal items and they were not even given access to showers nearby. Yes. Mr. Chairman. I wholeheartedly support our troops. and for that reason I would like to know why after Congress appropriated $79 billion for Iraq just 6 months ago. we are going to vote for another $87 billion appropriations. By the way. the largest supplemental that ever passed this House. I was horrified to learn that tens of thousands of our troops were sent out to battle without proper armor and to this day they still need many necessary items. for example. enough drinking water. showers. tennis shoes. proper chemical attack suits. quality boots. and even simple toothpaste. Once again. I want to know. where is the beef? Where is the first $79 billion? Our troops are doing their job. It is the Members in this body that are not doing what we were elected to do. I want to also point out to the media. you are not doing your job. You have given this administration a blank check. We have not seen one shred of evidence that links 911 to Iraq. Mr. Chairman. our troops are doing their job. It is up to the Members of this body to do theirs.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Each such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated or a designee. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for 10 minutes. equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. An amendment may amend a portion of the bill not yet read. except that an amendment proposing to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill must conform to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. this is a very straightforward amendment. It would simply strike the "Global War on Terrorism" segment of section 1301. hence prohibiting the Secretary of Defense the ability to carry out military construction projects in excess of $1.5 million outside Iraq without the prior notification to Congress. This emergency supplemental was not intended to broadly fund the global war on terrorism. but to finance emergency defense and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I am deeply concerned with section 1301 of the bill which grants the Secretary of Defense broad authority to carry out up to $500 million in military construction projects outside the United States without the prior approval of Congress. The supplemental appropriations bill we are discussing today is not intended to be a slush fund for the Secretary of Defense. And if my amendment is approved. the Secretary of Defense would still. would still be able to use the new temporary authority to make temporary constructions in Iraq for up to $500 million. The Secretary would also maintain his ability to use the operations and maintenance budget to construck temporary military installations overseas with a cost of up to $1.5 million. Let us keep in mind that these are supposed to be temporary structures. according to the bill. "the minimum necessary to meet the temporary operational requirements." It is my understanding that most of the construction projects we are talking about cost $250.000 or less. So $1.5 million is more than a generous ceiling for projects without congressional approval. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support responsible congressional oversight over our military construction spending overseas. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I would just remind my colleague that the first $60 billion we spent on this has been unaccounted for. In fact. we had the Department of Defense before us. and even one of the chairmen from appropriations said he could not tell us where all that $60 billion. or eve..I some of it really. had been spent. So we are really talking here about reasonable oversight and accountability. especially notice alone. Notice. That merely gives Congress the prerogative to maintain oversight while funds are being executed. To say that field commanders should not be accountable runs contrary to common sense and historic practice. Can opponents cite one example of how a notice provision cost lives or undermined a mission? The answer is no. This is about accountability. And the Secretary of Defense still has other funds available. other abilities. We are talking about temporary structures. most of which are under $250.000. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-10-16
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

f California. Once again. Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support responsible congressional oversight on our military construction spending overseas. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-10-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. under current practices today. the National Guard gets handmedown equipment from the regular Army. In many instances. it is never really anticipated those Guard units will go into combat. Now. because of manpower shortages. we are reaching so deeply into the Guard that we are having the Guard show up in Baghdad with oldgeneration Humvees without the proper equipment. We will have an amendment later today to transfer $300 million out of the weapons of mass destruction search by David Kay that has turned up a vial of botulism that we are now told by the experts has never been turned into a weapon. and It was sold by an American company back in the 1980s and given to the National Guard so that when they rotate into Baghdad and into other parts of Iraq. they will have modern equipment. We cannot sacrifice the lives of these young people because we failed to provide them the equipment or we gave them old equipment 7. 8. 10 years ago and they have to take that equipment into battle. This is absolutely crucial in terms of the safety and protection of our fighting men and women who are in the Guard who now find themselves stationed in combat zones in excess of a year.
Date: 2003-10-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague from California for introducing this amendment and making sure that it was in order. It raises a very important question. It is a matter of life and death for the members of our National Guard. Currently we have a policy in place which makes a lot of sense in ordinary circumstances for the taxpayer and for the use of our equipment and. that is. that the Glard gets essentially handmedown equipment as we buy new equipment for the active forces to engage in combat. But now what we find out is because of our manpower problems and the longer deployments of the Guard and a deeper reaching into the Guard structure in this country to deploy people in Iraq. in Afghanistan. we are in the situation where we now have the Guard entering the field of combat with old and. in some cases. obsolete equipment. equipment that is not compatible. communications equipment that is not compatible. Humvees that are from the first generation that do not provide the kind of protection to the occupants of that vehicle that the newer Humvees do. Yet. now we find. as I have been told by Guard members on the phone from Baghdad. in letters from Baghdad. they are seeing modern equipment being rotated back to the United States as those units are rotated out and the Guard is still left with old. obsolete. unsafe equipment. The National Guard must not be put into the theater of combat with less than the same equipment that the active Army is put into the field of combat with. We cannot treat them as secondclass citizens. This is a policy that makes sense in peacetime. but this is a policy that is now lethal to our Guard members. I would hope that the committee. in its deliberations. would be able to address this problem. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Date: 2003-10-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from California for this amendment which would provide additional equipment to our troops and still leave our U.S. inspections team with adequate resources for the search. But there is a simple way for the United States to supplement our search efforts by bringing back the highly trained U.N. troops to help in the effort. We have all said the international community should share in the burden and share in the cost. We have an opportunity right now. The U.N. has a team of over 354 inspectors on the ground. trained. ready to go on short notice. What would it cost the United States? Nothing. They are paid for through the U.N. dues. They can also supplement our effort in another way. They can bring us something that money cannot buy. which is credibility. The fact of the matter is that this administration has lost much ofits credibility with respect to claims it made of weapons of mass destruction. S I01030 If we want the international community and the American people to have faith in the findings. It is important that we bring in an independent inspection team to Join our efforts. Only then can we convince the international community that any findings they make are legitimate and unbiased. So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment. It is a winwin.
Date: 2003-10-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I missed rollcall No. 559. because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present. I would have voted "Nay."