macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-02-11
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of House Resolution 41. congratulating the University of Portlr id womens soccer team for winning the 2002 NCAA Division I national championship. In addition to bringing home that trophy to the university. the Pilots fielded the first sophomore to be recognized as the Natione top collegiate soccer player. How could we have gotten there? I believe the accomplishment of these women is especially poignant as the Bush administration considers making changes to title IX. the 1972 landmark legislation which bans discrimination against women and schools and which is responsible for unprecedented gains in the participation of women in sports. In the 30 years since the enactment of title IX. participation of girls in high school varsity teams has gone from one in 27 to one in three. Female participation in varsity collegiate sports has also risen to over 150.000. and we have already seen the gains that women have made in the Olympics. We have seen our United States athletes win in those Olympic games. Why? Because of title IX. Overall. as a direct result of title IX. we have made great strides. So why are we trying to stop that? Why are we trying to change title IX? We should not. because the progress that we make on the soccer field extends to other places. well beyond that playing field. Girls who play sports are 80 percent less likely to have unwanted pregnancies. They are three times more likely to stay in school and 92 percent less likely to use drugs. So now is not the time to change title IX. High school girls continue to miss out on opportunities. There are 1.1 million less athletic slots in high schools in the Nation for girls as compared to guys. College women receive less money. $133 million less spent on womens sports than on mens sports at the collegiate level. %Instead of focusing on title IX. we should figure out how we divvy up the profits that come from some of our athletic teams to ensure that everybody gets the opportunity to be on the playing field if they want to be there. Again. congratulations to the University of Portlands womens soccer team. but remember that it is people like Patsy Mink who went ahead and fought for our rights and laid the groundwork so girls could play. Remember that and help us.
Date: 2003-02-12
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to comment on H.R. 4. the Personal Responsibility. Work. and Family Promotion Act of 2003 and to voice my support for the Democratic substitute. The Republican bill is an unfunded mandate for the States. H.R. 4 will cost the States a total of $11.1 billion. with my State. California. being hit the hardest with almost $2.5 billion. In contrast. the Democratic bill properly funds employment services and quality child care for families. The Democratic bill would replace the current caseload reduction credit with an employment credit. which means we would reward States for moving people into jobs. not just off the welfare rolls. Finally. the Democratic proposal ensures fairness for legal immigrant families. It removes the 5year ban on States to help legal immigrants with Federal TANF funds. Medicaid services for pregnant women and children. and SSI benefits for disabled children. Mr. Speaker. speaking as a daughter of immigrants who are now U.S. citizens. it is unAmerican to enact laws that discriminate against those who come here legally looking for a chance to start a new life.
Date: 2003-02-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. and I want to thank her publicly for all of the work over the last several years that she has put into our Democratic substitute. trying to advance this discussion about our obligation to try and help those individuals who want to work to be able to go to work and to be able to get a job that not only takes them off of the public assistance rolls but it also takes them out of poverty. That has to be our goal. It is unbelevable that the Republicans would introduce the very same bill that they introduced almost a year and a half ago when the economy has changed entirely. During that time what we have seen is the highest unemployment rate since 1994. We have seen almost 1.7 million Jobs lost since 2001. Almost 2 million jobs have disappeared. In those sectors of our economy where people are likely to go to get entrylevel jobs. in the hospitality industry. in the retail industry. in the fast food industry. they are all in trouble. They are all laying workers off. Yet we want to act like today is how it was a year ago. 2 years ago. 3 years ago. No. What we need is we need jobs and we need child care for those individuals who are seeking those jobs. The Republican bill fails to provide that. It fails to recognize how lousy the Bush economy is and how many people are in trouble. We have 1 million people.who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and cannot find work. And somehow we are suggesting that these people just go out and look. that they will be able to find that work. I hope they are able to. but they will not unless we provide the kind of child care that is necessary. The gentlewoman from California has made it clear: In 20 States we have a waiting list of the working poor. of people trying to get off of welfare. of people who are working to try to find child care for their children. In California. 200.000 people are waiting for child care. The money they have in the bill will not take care of the problem in California. much less nationwide. The problem nationwide is $11 billion in child care. They put in $1 billion in mandatory child care. The Republicans have got to wake up and understand what has happened to our economy. We want these people to be able to go to work. We want those people who are working now to be able to stay in the workplace. But the economy has to improve. and they have got to provide the underpinnings so these individuals can take advantage of those job opportunities should they come along.
Date: 2003-02-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and I want to recognize and commend the appropriators for the difficult task that they had over this past year In coming together on this legislation. I also want to express my very serious disappointment on what happened in the conservation accounts in the Interior appropriations portion of this legislation. that we were not able to fund the commitments that we had made that so many local communities and conservation organizations rely on. where we have partnerships with business and civic organizations and individuals coming together to try and provide for the conservation of our lands and our open spaces. which have been terribly successful. The urban parks being zeroed out Is a major disappointment to so many urban areas where we have. again. put together coalitions from the NBA. from womens sports to neighborhood organizations. from the Urban League and so many to rebuild these recreational facilities and opportunities for young people. It is a major disappointment. I also must tell my colleagues that the forest stewardship contracts now simply open up the forest in a most unregulated fashion. The disappointment is really. this. and It Is not the fault of these appropriators. it is the process. Because with this process it is not a fact that I did not get to be heard on this bill at one particular time or another. but my constituents did not. So many millions of Americans that are deeply concerned about the health of our environment. about the health of our forest. about the activities on our public lands are shut out from this process because those decisions were made last night or this morning or the night before. and they have had no time to respond to them. The vote will be taken about it. and they will read about it in the newspapers over the coming weeks. That is a major affront to democracy. That is a major affront to the basic principles of this institution. to the basic principles of representative government.. that the people In this country have been closed out of this process. Yes. the process has gone on a lot longer than it should have. but it was far more closed than at any time in the history of the House of Representatives. And that is a major. major disappointment for those of us. as we sit here on the brink of war talking about freedom and we think about bringing freedom and democracy to other countries and we see it shut down in the peoples House. Legislation sits here and nobody has the ability to read it. Nobody knows what is in it. but we are going to be asked to vote for it. That is not the democracy we should be exporting. That is not the process we should be exporting. It is a process that denies our constituents. Whether they are interested in education or the environment or public health or aerospace. it denies them the opportunity to be heard. and it is a corruption. an outright corruption of the basic and fundamental principles of our government. of our constitution. and of this institution. and it ought to be stopped.
Date: 2003-02-13
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. on Thursday. February. I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation In my district. reflect that had I been present and voting. I would have voted "no" on rollcall No. 27."yea" on rolicall No. 28. "yea" on rollcall No. 29. "no" on rollcall No. 30. "yea" on rollcall No. 31. and "yea" on rolicall No. 32.
Date: 2003-02-27
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. If I had been present. I would have voted no on final passage and yes on the Democratic substitute. I needed to return to my district earlier than planned because of an urgent matter and because of the weather emergency. I believe that this measure is simply going too far since it bans all human cloning. This would lead to a terrible stifling of important scientific research that could potentially have been conducted to save the lives of countless human beings who suffer from degenerative and lifethreatening illness. The bill is so extensive that it would not only ban reproductive cloning but also therapeutic cloning for research or medical treatment. Moreover. it would impede research that is designed to help those who suffer from a variety of disease such as Alzheimers. diabetes. Parkinsons and spinal cord injuries. The bill would make it nearly impossible for our country to benefit from ongoing stemcell research. Many people I have spoken with that are informed on this subject argue that the technology banned by this bill Is vital to any breakthrough in the use of these "master" stem cells. Enactment of this legislation would stop stem cell research in its tracks and deny Americans the benefit of research that the National Institutes of Health has described as having "enormous" medical potential in the treatment of any number of lifethreatening diseases and conditions. Additonally. I believe that those who oppose stem cell research on ethical grounds are simply misunderstanding the Issue. Currently. there are tens of thousands of frozen embryos already in fertility clinics around the nation. which. if not used for research. will merely be destroyed. These are cells that are not yet specialized to perform a specific task. but can take on the character of virtually any cell in the body. Numerous studies demonstrate that these cells may be capable of repairing what goes wrong with other cells. and therefore hold the cure to many horrible diseases and conditions that attack the human body on the cellular level. In my view. not to take advantage of this research by yielding to the excessive influence of our countrys powerful conservative activists would be a terrible mistake. I also do not believe that an all out ban on human cloning needs to include a ban on nuclear transfer research. The former brings a new child into the world. the latter is concerned only with the study of embryonic development and curing disease. In a word. this bill would prevent vital research from taking place.
Date: 2003-02-27
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. on Thursday. February 27. I was unavoidably detained due to.a prior obligation in my district. I request that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD reflect that had I been present and voting. I would have voted "yes" on rolicall No. 37. on "yes" rollcall No. 38. and on "no" rolicall No. 39.
Date: 2003-02-27
Speaker: CONDOLEEZZA RICE (democrat)
Chamber: S

National Security Adviser. The White House. Washington. DC. DEAR DR. RICE: We wrote to you earlier this month about our increased concern regarding the crises on the Korean peninsula. Our concern has deepended significantly as a result of a report in todays New York Times. which was confirmed by the Administration. that the U.S. government has evidence that North Korea is removing spent nuclear fuel rods from storage. These rods. which had been securely stored under IAEA monitoring from 1994 until recently. reportedly contain enough plutonium to produce roughtly a half dozen nuclear weapons. As alarming as this report is. we are Just as troubled by the Administrations reported reaction to these developments. Prior to this disclosure. the Administration said nothing publicly or privately to Congress about these activities. According to comments attributed to senior Administration officials. the Administration has consciously decided to hold this information in an effort to avoid creating a crisis atmosphere and distracting international attention from Iraq. This muted response to the worlds worst proliferator taking concrete steps that could permit it to build a nuclear arsenal stands in stark contrast to the Presidents statement on Tuesday evening that "the gravest danger in the war on terror . . . is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear. chemical. and biological weapons." It is also increasingly difficult to square the Administrations rehtroic on Iraq and decades of U.S. policy aimed at discouraging the emergence of declared nuclear powers with its continued downplaying of the threat posed by North Koreas blatant disregard for international rules on proliferation. As the crisis with North Korea continues to escalate. the Administrations policy has not gotten any clearer. The Administrations lack of a clear. consistent policy and our failure to take concrete steps to address this growing crisis has produced consternation and confusion. One result is that our allies in the region appear to be taking a course directly at odds with the Administrations latest pronouncements. Given the stakes of the situation and the ongoing confusion about the Administrations policy. we request that you come brief the Senate as early as is practical to discuss that we know about North Korea[s latest actions and what the United States is doing in response. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible Sincerely.
Date: 2003-03-04
Speaker: TUBBS JONES (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Ohio

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Housing Concurrent Resolution 54. honoring the Visiting Nurse Association. In 1902. 13 young women met in Cleveland to form a local organization that would become one of the earliest pioneers of a new concept called community health nursing. From those women the Visiting Nurse Association of Cleveland was born. These nurses understand that most people prefer the comforl and security of their home to recover and rehabilitate from an illness or injury. Making home health care an essential part of health care today. The Visiting Nurse Association touches the lives of nearly every American in some way. While the size of the Visiting Nurse Association has grown tremendously. the quality of health care that they provide to people regardless of their ability to pay. continues to be superb. The organization serves over 15.000 people a year in Ohio. I would like to honor the visiting Nurse Association for the hard work and dedication they continue to provide to those in need.
Date: 2003-03-05
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of those fighting domestic violence in our communities. Historically we have viewed domestic violence as a womans issue. and statistics tend to support that school of thought. Nearly onethird of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. every 2 minutes a woman is raped in the United States. and more than 500.000 women are stalked every year. But as we all become more educated on the causes and the effects of such actions. we realize that this is a problem that is not genderbiased. but one that touches every aspect of our society. It affects families. children. friends and even coworkers. More and more. men are joining the voices in the fight against domestic violence. and I applaud them for having the insight to understand that this is more than a womans issue and that it is everybodys responsibility. And I applaud organizations like the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence for continuing to raise awareness of this issue and for all who join them to protect women across this country and in the.world.
Date: 2003-03-05
Speaker: TUBBS JONES (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Ohio

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 743. First. I would like to acknowledge Mr. MATSUI for working diligently on the Social Security Act of 2003. As we all know. H.R. 743 will extend the direct fee withholding program payment to attorneys who represent supplemental security income claimants. thus encouraging more attorneys to represent them. It is vital that we pass legislation that addresses the major concerns of our seniors. the blind. and the disabled. This legislation imposes greater standards on individuals and organizations that serve as representative payees for Social Security and supplemental security income recipients. this legislation will make nongovernmental representative payees liable for "misused" funds and subject them to civil monetary penalties. H.R. 743 will reduce the fee assessments from the Social Security Administration that charges attorneys for fee withholding. Overall. the Social Security Act of 2003 will be beneficial to recipients and those who serve as represehtatives for recipients. Furthermore. H.R. 743 will make a number of technical changes designed to reduce Social Security fraud and abuse. Mr.* Speaker. I will close my statement for the record with supporting H.R. 743.
Date: 2003-03-05
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. and I want to especially thank my good friend. the gentleman from Maryland and applaud my CBC colleagues for their hard work in bringing us together here tonight to talk about the HIV pandemic. The global fight against HIV/AIDS is important to U.S. security interests because the disease has proven to be a significant destabilizing force in much of the developing world. It has removed many of the most productive members from society and devastated the social. political and economic infrastructures of those countries hardest hit. Mr. Speaker. today. the chance of a 15yearold African girt making it to the age of 60 Is 52 percent. By 2010. it will be about a 30 percent chance. This will have a sizeable impact on the future of African society. With this kind of outlook for African youth. investment in education and economic advancement practically become nonissues. In January. President Bush proposed spending $15 billion over five years to fight global HIVAIDS. The plan would commit $3 billion a year for five years to global AIDS reduction. including $200 million a year for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS. Malaria and Tuberculosis. I understand that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up the legislation very soon. The House International Relations Committee will consider a comparable bill. Mr. Speaker. I hope that this boost in spending is not a fait accompli. We must fight to ensure that Congress commits to the increase in Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Tuberculosis. and Malaria while preventing politics from intruding on decisions about health care. The purpose of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Tuberculosis and Malaria is to attract. manage and disburse additional resources for health through a new publicprivate partnership. It. is hoped that this will make a sustainable and significant contribution to the reduction of infections. illness and death and thereby mitigate the impact caused by HIV/AIDS. tuberculosis and malaria in countries in need. and contribute to poverty reduction as part of the Millennium Development Goals. Mr. Speaker. We still have a long way to go to raise awareness about the disease and to ensure that Nations have the resources to implement proven prevention and treatment programs. We must do more to help those countries to combat these deadly diseases. We must commit ourselves to doing more. and I hope that this Congress can make that commitment. and I strongly urge the President of the United States to do the same for the Global Fund.
Date: 2003-03-06
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on rollcall Nos. 47. 48. and 49. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present. I would have voted "aye" on these rollcalls.
Date: 2003-03-12
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 5. the socalled HEALTH Act of 2003. The acronym in the title of this bill supposedly stands for Help Efficient. Accessible. Low Cost. Timely Healthcare. But close examination of the provisions of the bill leads me to the conclusion that the acronym. instead spells Help Eviscerate Accountability by Law for Traumatic Harm. Supporters of this bill claim that medical malpractice premiums are out of control because of excessively highdamage awards in malpractice suits. But paid losses have tracked consistently with medical inflation rates for the last 3 decades. There simply is no explosion of paid losses. Furthermore. there is no provision in the bill. no provision. that requires insurers to lower their rates once the caps are in place. Supporters of this bill make it plain whom they care for: insurance companies. And it is also clear where the losses will be: people injured due to medical negligence.