macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-04-02
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership in organizing this Special Order. and to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for participating. Mr. Speaker. I have served on the Committee on Veterans Affairs for 11 years. and I do not think I have ever been as outraged at the shameful act of this Republican leadership as I am today. On the same day that this House voted to commend our troops and the work that they are doing in Iraq. this same Republican leadership pushed through a veterans budget that cut the VA budget by almost $30 billion. Let me repeat that. Thirty billion dollars. Republicans can talk the talk. but they do not walk the walk. Or as one veteran group says. they do not roll the roll. It is not what you say. Mr. Speaker. it is what you do. Our troops today are tomorrows veterans. These cuts mean the loss of almost 20.000 VA nurses at a time when we are already experiencing a nursing shortage. These cuts mean the loss of 6.6 million outpatient visits. These cuts mean the disenrollment of over 160.000 veterans in a 1year period from the VA health care system. [] 2045 Not only that. but these cuts also mean reaching into the pockets of our Nations serviceconnected veterans and robbing them and their survivors of a portion of the promised compensation. And the veterans are not the only unlucky recipients of the Republican budget ax. Elementary and secondary education as well as teacher quality programs also get the ax. Head Start and school lunch programs get the ax. The Office of Minority Health and the Ryan White program all get the ax. Mr. Speaker. I do not have enough time here today to let the American people know about all the crucial programs that the Republican leadership does not think are more important than funneling money to their country club friends. Mr. Speaker. this budget dishonors the service of Ynillions of veterans and our Nations commitment to care for its defenders. Mr. Speaker. I cannot express it any better than the Disabled American Veterans did so appropriately in testifying on this budget. and I quote. "Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of bur government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nations heroes and rob our programs. health care. and disability compensation to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy? " Let me repeat that again. Somebody out there needs to hear what I am saying. The Disabled American Veterans. in testifying before the Committee on Veterans Affairs said. "Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government that you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nations heroes and rob our programs. health care and disability compensation to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?" Mr. Speaker. I call on all of my colleagues who so vocally supported the troops 2 weeks ago on the floor to stand up today and put their money where their mouth is. This budget is one of the best examplgs of what I call reverse Robin Hood. robbing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. Wake up. America.
Date: 2003-04-02
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. we talk a great talk here. and on Veterans Day we are all involved in the parade. but what is very discouraging is when we get in the closed rooms of the conference and they say. well. we do not have enough. Well. the Bible tells us. and many of my colleagues talk about the Bible and the poor will always be with us. but our job in Congress is to help raise the standards. How can we deny our veterans fighting for us today? They will come home tomorrow. they are going to need assistance and counseling. and yet we are cutting programs. It is a disgrace. I say. wake up. America. One last thing as far as our veterans are concerned. Many of them are African Americans. They are fighting for this country today when we have a Commander in Chief who says you are good enough to go fight. but you are not good enough to go to our universities. and that is a disgrace. Wake up. America.
Date: 2003-04-03
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor a very good friend of mine and Costa Mesas mayor. Karen L. Robinson. Mayor Robinson was recently appointed as a judge of the Orange County Superior Court. making her the first black woman appointed to our county bench. Robinson currently supervises five attorneys as the litigation counsel coordinator for the California State University System. and she also serves as a judge pro tempore. presiding over smallclaims cases for the countys municipal and superior courts. Robinsons appointment as a judge is not the first time that she has made history. In 2000. she was named to the Costa Mesa City Council and in 2002 was named mayor. Both are firsts for an African American in that city in Orange County. I would like to congratulate Robinson on her outstanding achievements and all of her contributions to our community. and I know that she will have even more successes in her career. and I wish her the best.
Date: 2003-04-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. today. unfortunately. the Democrats will not be allowed to offer an amendment that would dramatically increase the security of this Nation from terrorist activities. and that is an amendment to provide for the nuclear detection of nuclear devices that might be put into containers in ports overseas. We have 6 million containers a year that come to the United States. The CIA has told us. the intelligence agencies have told us that this is one of the prime ways to deliver nuclear material by a terrorist. The HartRudman Commission that warned us of 911 prior to 911 has warned us that this is the main wxiy in which a teryorist would have an opportunity to deliver a nuclear device. But what do we do? We wait until the containers get to the port of San Francisco. to the port of Oakland. to the port of New Jersey. to the port of Miami to then check them. Fl 1015 It is too late if they get inside of our ports. If a nuclear device went off in one of our ports. it would not only devastate hundreds of thousands of lives. it would not only devastate the city. it would devastate the world economy. The Democratic amendment should have been allowed so we can check these containers before they leave Asia. before they leave Europe. before they leave Africa. That Is security for the Nation.
Date: 2003-04-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. one of the sad side effects of this unfair rule is that we will not be able to consider the Obey amendment to provide additional money for homeland security. and specifically. we will not be allowed to consider additional money for the protection of our sea ports of this Nation. According to the CIA. it is more likely for a terrorist to sneak nuclear material into our ports than for a missile to reach our shores. According to the prestigious task force headed by Senators Rudman and Hart. port security is a critical mandate which needs adequate funding. And according to Steve Flynn. a highly respected security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. an explosion from nuclear material smuggled into any American port would not only inflict devastating casualties. it would bring America to a grinding halt. Our economy would simply shut down. We cannot check every container that comes to our ports every day. but there is much more that we can do. The Obey amendment would have allowed us to start to put in place security provisions overseas before the containers come to the United States. before they present a risk to our citizens. before they present a risk to our economy. before they present a risk to our national security. But we will not be allowed to consider that amendment because this closed rule would not allow a Democratic debate.
Date: 2003-04-03
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my frustration and my disappointment in that our first responders are being neglected in this effort to supplement the cost of the war. I am disappointed on behalf of the first responders in our district in Orange County. California. I am disappointed because the police in Anaheim. California are being forced to spend an additional $20.640 a day to maintain their readiness under the orange threat level. Mr. Chairman. $20.640 per day. The Federal Government is telling these local officers at what level they must remain alert and yet adequate funding is not being provided. This mirrors what is going on all across our Nation. All of our first responders are responding every single day to the threat that still exists against this country. They are responding with additional officers. with additional sergeants. and with the additional overtime necessary to keep their forces alert. Our first responders are fighting the war. and we should be funding them.
Date: 2003-04-03
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. and I rise in strong opposition to the Hoekstra amendment. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Connecticut
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak against the supplemental bill proposed by the Bush administration. While Democrats strongly support the immediate passing of whatever is necessary to support our troops. the administrations war supplemental appears to leave critical areas severely underfunded. Under the bill. there would be no money. no money. to provide communication equipment for first responders. leaving many local police. firefighters. and emergency workers unable to communicate with each other during an emergency. There would be no money. no money. for homeland security grants. despite the Coast Guards latest report that they are short almost $1 billion to meet port security needs in this year alone. This bill also leaves nuclear security needs amounts unmet. providing only 7 percent of the $380 million which his own Secretary of Energy identified as an urgent homeland security requiremenL. This bill is bad for the economy. and it is bad for our Nations first responders. Underfunding critical programs and operations puts our homeland at risk.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I would like to commend all those who participated in last weeks protest of the University of Michigans adrnissions policies. Many students from institutions across this great nation traveled to the nations capitol to have their voices heard on this issue. Thousands of students from Howard University to Harvard University. walked from the Supreme Court to the Lincoln Memorial chanting. "Saving Affirmative Action." Affirmative action ensures that all people have all equal rights. Affirmative action is one of the most effective solutions to diversifying a historically unfair society. Mr. Speaker. I would like to take a moment to say "thank you" to the countless students. volunteers. and workers who believe in this historically significant effort. It is vital that Americas higher education system continue the critical role in preparing our students to be leaders in business. law. medicine. education. and other pursuits that affect public interest. Societal discrimination has adversely affected institutions of higher education since the founding of this country. Affirmative action programs have helped to desegregate America. Racial and societal discrimination is not just limited to higher education. It also exists in voting. housing. employment. and many other sectors of modern day society. Equal rights in higher education must start somewhere. I agree that the University of Michigans policy is clearly and rightfully designed to attempt to make up lor discrepancies that do not afford minorities and the economically deprived access to quality education. Mr. Speaker. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in extending my appreciation to all the students who participated in last weeks demonstration in support of equality and justice at Americas institutions of higher learning..
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak out against H.R. 1261. the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. The unemployment rate in this country jumped to 6 percent last month. leaving 8.8 million Americans without a job. The Republican response to this crisis is a very weak bill that does nothing to creates jobs for American workers. The bill also eliminates funding to provide job search and job training assistance to dislocated workers and to those affected by these mass layoffs. Moreover. this bill does nothingto restore the $440 million in cuts already imposed on the job training programs of this Nation. por does it protect against an additional $265 million in proposed cuts for fiscal year We need to enact legislation that creates jobs. This bill. coupled with another large tax cut. does nothing to help lowincome workers who need relief from this struggling economy. What will it take for this administration to realize that their plans are not working? 7 percent unemployment? 10 percent unemployment? I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1261 and the other legislation that leaves our Nations unemployed workers behind.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As a new Member of this House. I was appalled that one of the first actions we took in the Committee on Education and the Workforce was to adopt a provision that strikes at the heart of religious liberty in this country. The underlying bill contains a provision that takes us down a very dangerous road in this country. a road of religious bigotry and intolerance. and even worse. it uses taxpayers dollars to promote that intolerance. What am I talking about? Under current law. if you receive Federal funds to run a job training program in this country. you are not allowed to discriminate in your hiring based on religion. I think that makes sense to all Americans. If you are receiving Federal dollars for a program you are running. you should not be able to say to a perspective job applicant. I am sorry. you are the wrong religion. But that is what this does. Here is a chart that shows what current law is. This was a law that was language originally signed into law by President Reagan. It was most recently adopted again by this body in 1988 as part of the last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It has a prohibition of discrimination language. and it prohibits discrimination in employment based on. religion. existing law. But what this underlying bill does is it takes a big red X mark and crosses out "religion." It is a green light in this country to allow organizations that receive Federal funds to say no. to give you the religion test. Imagine if you were to open up your local newspaper and see a help wanted ad for a job training program. and it said Christians only need apply. Jews only need apply. or Muslims only need apply. In fact. it can say Baptists only. or Methodists only. We would be appalled. But even worse. we would be appalled if we saw that that ad in that newspaper was paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Imagine as an American citizen responding to an ad for a job with a job training program. and you are qualified and you go to the interview. and they say. Gee. you know. you are really qualified. in fact you provided job training services in the past. but. golly. you are just the wrong religion. You are not a Christian. or a Jew. or You are not a Muslim. Or you could be the right religion. but they are allowed to interrogate you. They can ask you questions. How many times did you go to church? Or synagogue? What are your charitable contributions? Lets talk about your marriage and family life. They are allowed under this provision to probe into your personal life to determine whether you meet their "religious test." And they can do it all with your taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker. that is not the America I know. I do not think that is the America most Americans know. It strikes at the heart of our constitutional protections for liberty. I would just say I think the full House deserves an opportunity to at least debate this. so that all 435 members have an opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" on whether they want to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I want to join my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are rejecting this legislation because of its embracing of religious bigotry. As was pointed out. the language that is in the current law was authored by Dan Quayle. it was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I guess that was when the Republican Party was a more tolerant party. But this Republican Party today. for the first time. will repeal a major civil rights piece of legislation that outlaws discrimination based upon religion. To do so is to embrace the ugly. ugly form of religious bigotry. There is no other explanation for that. The people will be rejected in the pursuit of their employment. and it comes in a bill that is designed to get people more employment. They can be qualified for the job. they can be ready to go to work. they can provide valueadded to their employer. and they can be rejected because of their religion and for no other reason. That is bigotry. That is what the Republican Party is embracing here. Yes. today religions can reject this with their private money and their private donations and collections. They can do that. But if they take Federal money. they cannot do it. This is not about whether or not religious organizations participate in work employment programs. work training programs. One of the most effective programs in my district is run by North Richmond Missionary Baptist Church. It came out of welfare reform. It has done a tremendous job of getting people trained and into employment. But they do not discriminate against people. because the law does not allow that. But hundreds of thousands of dollars are run through that program to try to help people be employed. But this law will say for the first time that a religious organization with Federal moniey. with a position paid by the Federal Government. can discriminate against individuals because of their religion. My colleagues are right. We should reject this. And it is an insult. and it goes to the level of the corruption of the democratic institution of the House of Representatives that we would not be allowed to have an amendment where we could debate and vote on this measure. This is fundamental to the freedoms of this country. it is fundamental to the right of free speech in this institution. it is fundamental to the democracy of the peoples House. But this process has been so corrupted in the Committee on Rules. so corrupted by the Republican leadership that we will not be allowed a vote on the matter of whether or not people should be allowed to discriminate with Federal dollars. whether organizations should be able to engage in religious bigotry. Members will not be able to have an up or down vote. You talk about a corrupt process. We spilled blood to bring democracy and freedom in Iraq and we see it being closed down in the House of Representatives. We see the underlying basic tenets of the democratic foundation of this House. the right to debate. the right to vote. the right to express our differences being corrupted by the Republican leadership and the Republican Committbe on Rules.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. from listening to the other side. you would think that this was something that was runofthemill. that we took away these protections every day and have in the past. That is just not true. This is the first time this Congress will eliminate. delete language in our statutes. in our laws that expressly prohibits discrimination in these programs based on religion. It is the first time we will remove a protection that this body has decided is important and fundamental to American principles of operation of church and State. As has been stated. this language was first signed into law in 1982 by Ronald Reagan. It was readopted in 1998 by this House of Representatives. And it continues to make sense to every American out there that their tax dollars should not go to discriminate when it comes to federal programs that are secular in nature. Mr. Speaker. I am extremely disappointed that this full House is not given the opportunity to debate this full issue and vote up and down.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan . a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Date: 2003-04-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. this amendment would have the effect of providing an equivalent of 26 weeks of unemployment insurance to individuals who have exhausted both their State and their Federal extended benefits. The importance of this amendment is that It can provide a certainty to those people who are going to exhaust their benefits to know that these benefits will be there. We have tried in the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday to offer an amendment to send a message to these families. It was rejected. We tried in our committee. It was rejected. We tried in the Committee on Rules last night. It was rejected. None of you. if you were in the situation of these families. would want to be taken up to the eve of the exhaustion of your benefits or. as we did a few months ago. we went past the exhaustion of the benefits. They exhausted on the 31st. and we went into January before we approved those benefits. We owe it to these families. These families were working before their job disappeared. They are trying to provide for their families. They are trying to provide for their health care. They are trying to provide for their education and keep their house and keep their car. The least we can do is let them know in advance. but so far the Republican leadership has refused to do that. The administration claims that they are still debating on whether or not they will extend the unemployment benefits upon exhaustion. Every member of our committee voted for this amendment. Every member of our committee on our side of the aisle spoke for this amendment because it is a compassionate thing to do. It is a decent thing to do. and it is a smart economical thing to do because this money to these families will enable them to participate in the economy and put demand into the economy. It is the minimum that we can do. We would like to just have a simple extension of the unemployments benefits. but so far there has been a deaf ear on the other side of the aisle on that matter. So we would like to have this motion to recommit to succeed. to go back and to extend the equivalent of those 26 weeks to those individuals and to those families that are in dire straits. A million more families have exhausted their benefits than at this time in the last recession. The severity and the duration of this economic downturn is such. and this administration has yet to take a single step. a single step to help create jobs in this country. to help create the benefits for these individuals that they need. That is what this amendment helps us to address. The first plan of this administration was a massive failure. They passed their big tax cut. a trillion dollars. and we have lost 2 million jobs. We cannot Just do more of the same. The American families that are under this economic stress in this Job market in this lousy economy deserve better.