macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. let me just set the record straight here. Mr. Chairman. because they talk about audits of time. there will be no audits of the private schools. That is false. The private schools that participate in this have to go through extensive recordkeeping and comparisons and will go through more when the Department of Education has written their regulations. So that is false. There are no terrorism schools that currently would be eligible for this money as I read the legislation. So. again. that is just a r~d herring put up there to try to defend the existing status quo which has produced a failing school system that is depriving tens of thousands of District youngsters the kinds of opportunities that children around the rest of the country get. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania has an amendment that wants to compare with Fairtax County. Let me make a point. The District of Columbia pays more per student than they pay in Fairfax County or Arlington. If this were a money problem. they would get the money. but they have a school system that when given the money has not been able to produce textbooks on time. was under court order to repair its schools. wasted just last week $59.000 on a phantom contract to a company that does not even exist.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. let me again just say how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on a number of other issues. We have a difference on one issue that we will resolve today on the House floor and then we will go on. and we will be working together on other issues tomorrow. But this is an important issue. it is important I think to all of us. And this is not dollars to private schools. these are dollars to parents. Because what has happened to the District of Columbia over the years. thousands of District residents have moved to the suburbs so their kids could get a decent education that they could not get in the city. Thousands of District residents send their kids to private schools because the public schools in the city have failed them. Not one Member of Congress. not a member of the city council. currently has their kids in the public schools of the District of Columbia. They are not good enough for our kids. but they are good enough for the people who cannot afford otherwise. This is a chance to equalize opportunity. That is all it is. It has been requested by those poor families that came before our committee and testified. They said. We have been waiting for years. They said they are going to fix the system. and 9 percent of our school children are reading proficiently in the 4th grade. That is the problem. and that is what we are trying to fix. not defend a system that is failing our kids.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I raise a point of order against section 119 regarding sole source contracts on the grounds that this section changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI and is. therefore. legislation included in a general appropriation bill.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. that is correct. And regardless of how this comes out. I hope we would work with the gentleman.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman raised the point of what happened in Florida. and we do not want that to happen. I think that is very clear.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. my understanding is that the Department of Education will carry the accredited list at this point. in terms of eligible schools. Not Just any school willynilly is eligible.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

To my understanding. it is not a discrimination based on that. but they would have to meet certain academic performance standards. This was drafted. of course. looking at the court cases in line to make sure this met the requirements. Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer the gentlemans question. but let me stop at this time and make sure we can get our advocates up. and maybe we can further this discussion if time permits. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. to my knowledge there is no exclusion of any religion. or inclusion. The Secretary of Education is the one that would be able to come forward with a list and make the determination. As the gentleman knows. there have been a number of court decisions along this line. and we feel this meets the mandate of the courts. and it has to meet a certain level.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield further. we leave discretion with the Secretary of Education. Let me say there have been a number of title VII cases that do deal with education. and that would be the criteria that the Department would meet. But we did not try to micromanage the criteria. They also have to meet certain educational standards. and that would really be the controlling criteria. is meeting educational standards.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I understand the gentlemans concern. Every school has to meet the nondiscrimination provisions that are currently in the law as well. If that gives the gentleman some level of comfort.
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. if I could ask the gentleman to let me get through my speakers and then we can continue the colloquy. Mr. Chairman. I yield Ph minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 2003-09-05
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona . one of the leaders on the original underlying bill.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. I am actually amazed that we are even here discussing this issue. We are right now in the midst of a war against terrorism. Should we take steps that help fund antiAmerican terrorist states. particularly one that is just 90 miles away from the United States? Mr. Chairman. right after 911 during the joint session ofCongress. President Bush spoke to Congress and he said "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward. any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." And yet. we are discussing an amendment that would provide billions of dollars to a terrorist antiAmerican regime. just 90 miles away from the United States. Mr. Chairman. I hear. well. but we do business with China. Mr. Chairman. there are seven nations on the list of terrorist countries: Iran. Libya. North Korea. Sudan. Syria. Iraq. I guess that one is no longer on the list. and Cuba. a terrorist. antiAmerican thug just 90 miles away from the United States. But yet I hear. well. but if he had money. if he only had money. he would change. He would be different. He would do really good things with the people of Cuba Pnjd also would become a friendly nation. But. Mr. Chairmin. what did Mr. Castro. that terrorist thug. do when he did have money. when. the Soviet Union gave him the funds. the billions of dollars that now this amendment hopes to replace? What did he do? He had troops in Africa. He was helping terrorists in Africa. He had troops in Grenada. and the U.S. actually invaded Grenada to liberate those people and there were Cuban troops there. terrorist Cuban troops there supporting that Communist regime. He was helping to fight democracies in Latin America. He was funding troops throughout the world. That is what he did when he. had money. Those who say the embargo has not worked. it sure has worked for the interests of the United States of America. because that man is not doing what he was doing: exporting terrorism. Now. he is limited. he is limited. But this amendment wants to give him billions of dollars so he can do what he -does best: terrorism. antiAmerican terrorist activities. This is amazing to me. Mr. Chairman. that we would be discussing it right now. The gentleman from Massachusetts
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. .Just a few points to clarify. Let us be clear. to remind our colleagues. for example. of who Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet is. There is no one more respected in Cuba today than Dr. Biscet. Dr. Biscet. because he is so respected by the Cuban people. has been sentenced to 25 years in the gulag. Dr. Biscet says that it would be unconscionable to lift the embargo. to alleviate the embargo in any way and to send the resources to the dictatorship. This young man Antunez Is serving 18 years because ever since he has been in high school he has been fighting for democracy in Cuba. and he says it would be unconscionable to send resources to the dictatorship. Let us he clear and on and on. Marta Beatriz Roque. the leaders who represent the Cuban people. who are in prison. do not want resources sent. The gentleman from Arizona . who keeps on saying that he knows that the dictator is a bad guy but he keeps on introducing amendments that would have the effect of sending billions of dollars to the dictator. has said this time that the dictator. and others have said. that he should not be believed. the dictator should not be believed when he says. yes. I want billions of dollars. I want billions of dollars. Imagine if the Flake theory would hold and every enemy of the United States now received billions of dollars from the United States because they are enemies of the United States and they cannot be believed because since they are really enemies of the United States. but we cannot believe enemies of the United States. it is good to send them billions of dollars. Imagine that theory. Imagine that thecry. That Is the Flake theory and of the United States. billions of dollars. Do not believe enemies of the United States. billions of dollars. Let us vote down this amendnient. and let us stand with the people in the Cuban prisons. and let us vote to support the sanctions until there are free elections In Cuba. Mr. Chairman.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I rise to claim the time in opposition. and I yield 21h minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida .
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. just to respond to the gentlewoman from California . Cuba does receive medical equipment. The U.S. can send medical equipment. The gentlewoman might want to look at the law before she speaks in front of us. Mr. Chairman. nobody wants to help the Cuban people more than the families of those Cuban people. And by the way. no one wants to help those people more than those Members who represent the families of those Cuban people here in Congress. and a few of us represent the bulk of them. the gentleman from New Jersey . the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. RosLEHTINEN). the gentleman from Florida and myself. and we get elected by those family members that these Members of Congress are saying that they want to help. But what they understand is there Is only one solution for the suffering of the Cuban people. and that is getting rid of the antiAmerican terrorist dictator. Fidel Castro. When we send more money that has to be sent to the government stores and goes to the government coffers so they can further their terrorist activities. that does not help the United States of America. It makes no sense to help fund a terrorist regime.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. debate has been brief. but I think informative on this matter. The reality is that every dollar that is sent in remittances is spent in stores. Since the economy is owned by the regime. the stores are owned by the regime. So obviously this is a delicate issue in the sense that many people obviously sQnd remittances to their families knowing that their families have to spend the remittances in the dollar stores. and thus the remittances will end up in the hands of the regime that oppresses the Cuban people. including the families that receive the remittances. But since it is a terrorist regime that engages in terrorist activities in addition to repression of its people. that is why these regulations. this balance. is in place. So again. there is a pattern here. The pattern is let us increase revenues to this dictatorship. Notice we are seeing on the floor today measures to increase revenues to the dictatorship. Whether they come on the floor and say the dictator is a bad guy. look at the actions. What are the effects of these amendments. to increase revenues for the dictatorship? So we should vote down these amendments and take further steps. For example. when we asked in the resolution that has been alluded to before that the prisoners be released and elections be held. not one prisoner has been released. much less has an election been held. Let us insist on what we asked for. and not help the regime.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. as I understand this amendment. it basically strikes the new OMB circular A76 and would be replaced by the old OMB circular A76. which all the parties were complaining about prior to this time. So the question really before the House is. is the new circular which was met. after getting input from all of the stakeholders. with a number of unanimous agreements on how this should be changed and incorporated Into this. after literally 700 comments were received in developing the guidelines. if this should be changed or should we go Lack to the old circular A76. Is that a correct understanding?
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Chairman. again. my friend from Maryland and I have fought a lot of battles on behalf of Federal employees. I represent a lot of Federal employees. as he does. We disagree about this particular amendment. I also represent a lot of contractors. and I also represent taxpayers who at the end of the day should be the major beneficiary from this because competitive sourcing. I think. means not less government or more government. it means more efficient government. and that is the goal of this. I hope the gentleman understands that it is a question of how we get to that. Let me make a couple of comments. I believe this is better for Federal employees in the sense that the new OMB circular A76 allows the government instead of just providing cost estimates that are compared against competition among the private sector. it almost puts the government at a disadvantage. This allows them to compete on the same field. It allows them to be more innovative in competing with the outside companies. and I think. therefore. more likely to prevail. Government basically has a chance to respond to the private sector on the same grounds. something they do not get under the current A76 circular and something in our hearings has been something they have complained about. That is thrown out the window with the gentlemans amendment. Secondly. since OMB circular A76 is not a regulation but it is simply an OMB circular. OMB can put out another provision tomorrow with minor revisions that we cannot touch. It could be worse. it could be better. but they do not have to go through the hearing process that they did by law to arrive at the conclusion they did here. So they could come back. issue i new circular tomorrow that would be very similar. could be more onerous. and we could not stop that. and that is also a fear I have. Right now we are in a mode where we are working with them where they are communicating with us. where they are making changes and reacting to some of the results of our hearings and congro.:sional input. I fear if this goes. that the executive branch will exercise their prerogatives and will move ahead in something that I think could be more disadvantageous to Federal employees. Finally. this process is fair in the sense that if the private vector wins a competition. the contractor has to give any displaced Federal employees a right of first refusal for jobs. The process provides for a 10 percent cost evaluation adjustment to the incumbent services provider. Federal employees in most Instances. and Federal employees offers do not have to comply with small business requirements or in mahy cases have their past performance evaluated. Private sector companies do. This is not about" campaign contributions. I would add to the gentleman on the other side. contributions from unions have gone to the people who are for this amendment and for other dissimilar amendments. There are interest groups on all side of this issue. but let us do what is right for the taxpayers. let us do what is right for this country. Let us defeat the Van Hollen amendment.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes. What the March regulations by President Bush have sought to do is to eliminate fraud and abuse by those who. under the guise of promoting educational travel. and of course. that is legal to the communist island have used that as a subterfuge for other reasons. fraudulently abusing the regulations. For example. here is a brochure. This is precisely what President Bush sought to eliminate in the March regulations. This is an 8- or 9yearold girl with makeup. eyeliner. and lipstick. Unfortunately. the regime in Cuba encourages child prostitution and there is significant trafficking in that tourism. That is something that President Bush has sought to eliminate by entities using the guise of educational travel. for example. which promote this kind of sickening tourism. Our colleague from Florida pointed out how blatant tourism also is encouraged under the guise of educational travel. Again. educational travel. cultural travel. that is legal. but what President Bushs regulations in March sought to do was to end the fraud and abuse of entities that are simply seeking to encourage revenue for the regime and in the process do horrendous things such as this. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-09-09
Speaker: MARIO DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Flor

ida. Mr. Chairman. the issues that the gentleman from Florida mentioned are still legal without his amendment. The rule change was to get rid of abuses. and the abuses we are talking about are very unfortunate. They include pedophilia and sex tourism. and those are the abuses that the new rules were implemented to stop. Let me be very clear. All these amendments that we are seeing today basically have one effect and one effect alone. to send more dollars to antiAmerican terrorist just 90 miles away from the United States who has said that he wants to destroy the United States. who has shot down unarmed American airplanes in international air space. and who has done everything in his power to enslave his people and to try to hurt the United States. All these amendments do is send more money to this terrorist regime at a time when we are at war with terrorists around the world. I agree with our President when he said you are either with us or with the terrorists. These amendments. with all due respect. unfortunately. are sending more funds to a terrorist regime and this particular amendment gets rid of some regulations to stop abuse. including those that go to Cuba with the excuse of going for educational reasons. and they go unfortunately in many cases for sexual tourism. including the most tragic and savage of them all. including pedophilia. which is sanctioned by the government of Cuba.
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend chapter 84 of title 5. United States Code. to provide that certain Federal annuity computations are adjusted by 1 percentage point relating to periods of receiving disability payments. and for other purposes.
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: JO ANN 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 remafks on H.R. 978.
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 978 is a great step towards reasonably assisting Federal employees. This legislation temporarily doubles the usual Federal employees retirement system direct benefit of 1 percent of an employees pay during a period of disability. The added percentage point offsets the reductions in Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan that would result from an employees discontinuation of contributions while temporarily disabled. The Department of Labor. the Office of Management and Budget. and the Office of Personnel Management support this legislation. Mr. Speaker. the inspiration of this bill is Mrs. Louise Kurtz. a U.S. Army civilian employee who works at the Pentagon. Mrs. Kurtz was tragically injured when terrorists crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the west side of the Pentagon. Mrs. Kurtz was at work at the Pentagon that day. and she was so severely injured that she remains in rehabilitation today for the burns that affected more than 70 percent of her body. Current law prohibits Mrs. Kurtz from contributing to her retirement program while she recovers and receives workers compensation disability payments. This reality will significantly delay the point at which she will be able to retire. H.R. 978 will allow Federal employees who are inJured or otherwise unable to work for extended periods of time to retire on schedule. Mr. Speaker. the work of Federal employees has become even more critical in the 2 years since September 11. Each and every day. Federal employees protect our homeland. deliver our mail. teach our children. respond to emergencies. and perform countless other essential tasks. H.R. 978 is an opportunity for this House to effectively protect our hardworking Federal employees by addressing an inadequate component of the FERS system.. Therefore. I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 978. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-09-10
Speaker: JO ANN DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Mr. Speaker. I have no other speakers at this time. I urge all Members to support the passage of this measure. and I yield back the balance of my time.