macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-03-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman. somebody ought to call the police. Something ought to call the police because this bill is simply a fraud on the public. This bill does nothing about the current gas price crisis in our country. It does nothing about Americas future energy problems. This bill is simply to try to make the Republicans look good while they do nothing. It is a fraud. It is a fraud on the American public. Let us understand what the Republicans have done. When oil was $10 a barrel. they would not allow us to buy it for the strategic oil reserve. Now. when oil is $35 a barrel. they will not let us use the reserve to help the American people. They cut $1.3 billion out of energy conservation efficiency and research and development. They put a rider on the transportation appropriations bill so we cannot even investigate getting better mileage in peoples automobiles. Between the 1970s and the 1980s. we doubled the mileage on automobiles. But we have not been able to do anything since then because of the Republican Presidents and Republican Congress. So now people have to sit in automobiles that are not fit and pay $2 for gasoline. No. we need the Republicans to stop their actions. to stop their actions against conservation. to stop their actions against home heating oil. They cut home heating oil. and 250.000 people who have homes in the Northeast that could have been weatherized were not weatherized. so 250.000 people this year had to go out and be gouged in the home heating oil market. Obviously. the Republicans now are trying to cover their tracks. Obviously. now they want to pretend like they had nothing to do with the energy problem that we have. But in appropriations bill after appropriations bill. we see the cuts on kinds of programs that can lead to new energy efficiencies. can lead to automobile mileage standards. that can bring about the kind of technology that can save this country millions and millions and millions of barrels every day. Because that is what we did during the 1970s. but we cannot do that with the Republicans. Call the police and get these frauds out of here.
Date: 2000-03-23
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this substitute. and especially call attention to the section dealing with the National Science Foundation and NASA. which is the area that will have the potential of closing the digital divide. I will point out that the Presidents recommendations clearly took care of this area. This is not a substitute for the Presidents proposal. it is a substitute for the Republicans proposal. If the Presidents proposal had been presented here today. we would have very little alteration to it. So I rise in support of this substitute. in lieu of the fact that we have to speak on behalf of the people.
Date: 2000-03-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. and I thank him for introducing the progressive budget substitute. There are many reasons to support this budget substitute: education. Head Start. the commitment to working people. But I would like to comment on fulfilling the long overdue commitment on public lands resources in this country. Over 300 Members of the House have cosponsored legislation in this session which would reverse the shameful record of recent Congresses in severely underfunding programs to protect the public lands to promote recreation and resource protection. The House Committee on Resources has reported out the Conservation Reinvestment Act by a 31 margin. and we are waiting for the Republican leadership to allow the full House to work its will on this historic bill. In the meantime. the Republican budget perpetuates the failure of recent Congresses to protect threatened resources on behalf of future generations. Congress made a promise to the American people 35 years ago: when we develop our offshore energy reserves. we will dedicate a small portion of the proceeds to the permanent protection of Americas parks. wilderness. forests and other public lands. So what happened? The leasing. exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf has proceeded for four decades. but the taxpayers and the Lands and Water Conservation Fund have been cheated. The money has been credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. but the Congress has refused to spend it year after year. And now the leaders of the Republican Party in this House are telling the American people that they Want more offshore oil drilling off of California. off of New Jersey. off of Alaska. off of Florida. but still no willingness to live up to the promise they made in 1965 to protect our natural resources. The Republican budget resolution that is before this House today perpetuates this larceny against the American public and American environment. Because the Republican budget ignores the Land and Water Conservation Fund. it ignores the current bill and it ignores what the American -people said they want. Eighty to 90 percent of the American people want the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They want it in the North and the South. in the East and the West. and even in the Rocky Mountain West. These people want their resources protected. and the way that can be done is by fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The substitute introduced by the gentleman from Oregon on behalf of the Frogressive Caucus is a substitute that does that. and this Congress ought to support that effort tonight.
Date: 2000-03-29
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

changed their vote from "no" to "aye." So the amendment was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 2000-03-29
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. as the gentlewoman from California pointed out. if you really want to effectively deal with this problem. you would go the treatment route. It is not because we say it. It is not because she says it. It is because the Rand Corporation who has spent a lot of our government money studying this to try to help us find a path to treat this says this is where you would go if you really want a bang for your dollar. It is not about giving up on the drug lords. It is not about prosecuting. but it is about once and for all deciding what is effective and is not. We now have 20 years of experience and $250 billion of effort that tell us this does not work. Yet this is our approach. We can also scrutinize some of the drug treatment programs because some of them do not work. but we are so addicted to those because they look good when you are standing there with the school children and the police but we are not getting the results so maybe we can score that one. So if we really wantto deal with this. we have got to think about whether or not we have got the commitment and the courage to deal with the demand and whether we can stay with it and start to offer people treatment instead of a waiting list. start to offer people hope that treatment will be there should they makethat decision. There are others who will not make that decision. That is almost something that is almost impossible to deal with. But for. those who are willing and have the courage to walk in and say I need help. I need treatment. what the gentlewoman from California was saying is we are here to help you and we can start to reduce that. We can start to reduce the market. We are throwing thousands and tens of thousands of people in jail for minor drug infractions and even when they are in jail we will not give them treatment. Where we have them 24 hours a day. we cannot find to give them treatment. We talk about triangulation. We are in between the left and the right. both of which are fostering the drug trade in Colombia. between the military and the guerrillas. between the paramilitary and the police. We are going to insert ourselves for $1.7 billion. Do we think we are going to bring home a solution for America? I do not think SO.
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2077. a bill originally introduced by Representative Brown of California. for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprints pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In just 3 weeks. we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the first Earth Day. And just like the return of spring. the coming Earth Day has spurred the majority to renew their annual migration to the House floor with legislation to supposedly demonstrate their concern and support for the environment. This is legislation that does both of those things. it tries to express their concern for the environment and also to clean up some problems within the sport fish restoration program. But I am afraid this legislation goes too far. In its desire to seek out waste. fraud. and abuse. I believe that this legislation. in fact. will end up. if kept in its current form. undermining the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to administer an account for roughly $450 million to support wildlife and sport fish conservation activities in the States. As we sat through the hearings. I must say that I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from Alaska
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may assume to the gentleman from Michigan who has been obviously a very strong supporter of this program and a strong voice for reform.
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say. this is not about whether or not we support or agree with the waste of money. because obviously nobody in this Chamber does and nobody in the Congress does. and the hearings that we had in the Committee on Resources were for the purposes of stopping those practices that were unacceptable. But the fact of the matter is the numbers that the GAO threw around have never been substantiated. The suggestion that somehow these individuals were engaged in illegal or criminal behavior has never been substantiated. was never found to be true. and we ought to set the record straight. The fact that that did not happen does not mean this was the bestrun program. but it also certainly means this was not the* worstrun program. We can show you many unfortunately tragically that are far worse than this that do not deal with several million dollars. but deal to the tune of billions of dollars of waste. That is a tragic fact. But the point is the record ought to be straight on this one so that the remedy fits the problem. and the concern about this legislation at this moment is that this legislation overreaches and in fact will keep the agency from doing what all of us in this Chamber want them to do. Speaker after speaker has gotten up here and made the point that this is a highly successful program. they have had great results in States building local programs for hunters and for fishers. and it is working. We have all had testimony to it in our States and in many of our districts where these programs have been utilized in conjunction with many local organizations. This is a successful program. We ought not in terms of being a little overzealous here then cripple the agency from doing what it is doing very well apparently.. We ought to address ourselves to those problems that are in fact real and ought not to be allowed to continue. but we ought not to overreach and do as many who are strong supporters of both this legislation and this program suggest may very well happen if some of these numbers are not moved up so the agency has the money necessary to properly administer the program which brought us to this point originally. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I raise the questions I raised earlier about those amendments. whether or not this goes far enough. I appreciate that the gentleman has added some money back. As I understand it. the $5 million is money that will go directly to the States as part of the national program. so I think where we are left is about $14 million for ad1 ministration. As I read the letters. again. from the International Association. of Fish "and Wildlife Agencies and the National Wildlife Federation. again. who are strong supporters of this legislation and of the program. they indicate that they think that the figure is somewhat higher than that. Originally we had talked about 18. That did not happen. They mentioned 16. Their formula figure may take it above that. We are obviously not going to solve that issue here today. but I would hope that the gentleman would continue to consult with these supporters of the programs and certainly with the State wildlife agencies that are administering the State side of that program. because I think they do raise the concerns about that. I do not know that exact figure yet. however. I believe it is higher than the figure the gentleman has in his budget. I would just hope that that could be done certainly before we contemplate sending this legislation to the White House.
Date: 2000-04-05
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. we have talked long. and the gentleman from Michigan and others who have been long involved in the program. We want to see this program come out whole at the end of this process with these changes and with this accountability. That is very important. I think. to all of our constituents. I am not happy raising these issues. but I think they have to be raised so that we can arrive at a point where we are comfortable and we can tell the State agencies and the other organizations that work with them in cooperation that we have made this program whole and it is doing the things for which it was designed and which are appropriate for it to do. I .raise this at this time in conjunction with the managers amendment.
Date: 2000-04-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Barrett/ Rush Amendment and in support of the FCCs LowPower FM radio station proposal. The Barrett/Rush amendment is a reasonable compromise to this legislation that would allow the FCC to continue work toward establishing these important communications tools. Mr. Chairman. lowpower FM stations would give churches. schools and local community groups access to the radio spectrum at a cost they can afford. These stations will only reach a couple of miles. but the message they will carry will reach many people. These stations will give churches a greater voice in the community. These stations will allow schools to set up inhouse radio stations. Schools can train kids for a career in the radio industry. as well as provide announcements of school closures and afterschool events. Local community groups will be able to contribute to the diversity of voices in their community while providing important information. The bill we are considering today will effectively give Congress the ability to kill the lowpower FM program. The Barrett/Rush amendment forces Congress to act on this proposal instead of allowing it to wither away. My colleagues and I have heard the concerns of broadcasters that these new stations will interfere with existing stations. This amendment will allow for further study to ensure that the integrity of the spectrum is maintained. However. it mandates that Congress will act on this proposal after the independent study on interference is completed. This amendment represents a more responsible compromise to allay the concerns of broadcasters while giving the FCC the ability to move forward with this program. Mr. Chairman. I urge support of this amendment and lowpower FM radio. Lets give new strength to the voice of the people.
Date: 2000-05-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 2932. The gentleman from Utah has quite accurately explained the legislation to the Members of the House. Originally. we in the minority had some concerns with this legislation. although we clearly were not questioning the historic value of the area covered by the legislation. Working with the gentleman from Utah . the subcommittee chairman. and with others. we think that the final version of this legislation addresses everyones concern. We ask that the House support the legislation. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this legislation. As explained by the gentleman from Utah . this was an inadvertent mistake when this report was terminated by the Federal Reports Elimination Sunset Act of 1995. and it is right for us to reinstate it. It is obvious to all Members of Congress that the Endangered Species Act has been one of our Nations keystone environmental laws to protect biodiversity and recover threatened and endangered species from the brink of extinction. This better helps us target our efforts to restoring endangered species. Section 18 of the Endangered Species Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to report annually to the Congress on "reasonably identified" expenditures for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species under the. ESA. This report includes an accounting of expenditures from all Federal agencies and from all States that receive section 6 grant funding for conservation activities. Over the years this report has been a valuable tool to discern priorities and trends in how and where ESA funds are spent. Unfortunately. the section 18 report was included in the list of unnecessary report requirements when Congress passed the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995. Consequently. this report requirement was scheduled to sunset on December 21. 1999. provided that Congress does not act to reauthorize it. This bill would correct the initial oversight and simply reauthorize this valuable report requirement. It is my understanding that the Administration did not include this report in the initial list that was forwarded to the Clerk of the House in 1994. and it is my further understanding that the Administration does not oppose its reinstatement at this time. The Endangered Species Act has been our Nations keystone environmental law to protect biodiversity and to recover threatened and endangered species from the brink of extinction. This bill would restore a helpful report and do no harm to the Act itself. I support S. 1744 and urge all members to do likewise. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to thank this gentleman for this legislation and for sticking with it all this time on behalf of the LaoHmong. As the gentleman knows. California has many LaoHmong residents in our State and also in my district. and they have been fantastic constituents and residents of our State and of our country. I want to thank the gentleman so - very much for finally getting this bill to the floor again so that we can deal with this problem that he has so adequately addressed.
Date: 2000-05-02
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this legislation as described by the gentleman from Utah . The minority side of the committee is in strong support of this legislation and in support of taking this important first step in the process. We look forward to a time hopefully when visitors to the Washington area can see a tangible reminder of the courage and the dedication displayed by many of our disabled veterans. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Idaho has quite properly explained this legislation to increase the spending ceiling for the north side pumping division of the Minidoka project in Idaho by $2.805.000. This increase would allow work already begun under the Minidoka north side drain water management plan to be completed. We need to protect the underground drinking water supplies in this area of the Snake River plain because they are threatened by contaminated irrigation drain water. I would urge all members of the committee to support this legislation. The administration has testified in support of this legislation and it is not controversial. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2000-05-08
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. this concurrent resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota would recognize the monument in New Ulm. Minnesota as a "national symbol for the contributions of Americans of German heritage." As the legislation points out. Americans of German heritage represent with onequarter of the U.S. population. and yet there is no national symbol recognizing the contributions that have been made to this Nation. The recognition provided by this measure is appropriate and I would like to commend the gentleman from Minnesota for his very diligent work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker. it should be -noted that this concurrent resolution does not alter the status of the monument in any way. nor does .it create any new Federal obligation. Mr. Speaker. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I would again say that the effort on behalf of this legislation by the gentleman from Minnesota has really been outstanding. as many of us who serve on the committee know. He has. I think. talked to all of us individually. and to so many other Members on the floor. to bring this to the attention of the full House of Representatives. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota . his colleague. for his work in lobbying on behalf of this legislation to give due recognition to the contributions of Americans of German heritage. Mr. Speaker. I urge its strong support.
Date: 2000-05-09
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. H.R. 2647 is an amendment to the 1984 AkChin Water Use Act. The 1984 act confirms the AkChin Indian Communitys rights to receive water from the Central Arizona Project. but it did not include the authority for the community to lease its Central Arizona Project water for use off reservation. Congress granted leasing authority to the AkChin in 1992. The community now desires to lease these 10.000 acrefeet of water annually to the Del Webb Corporation for use in a new planned community. The AkChin Community and Del Webb entered into a 100year lease agreement in 1996. It was believed at the time this would meet the States requirement for an "assured water supply" of at least 100 years. However. since several years have passed and since the lease agreement was signed. it is now apparent that the availability of an "assured water supply" under this lease would. in fact. be for less than 100 years. Mr. Speaker. this legislation will extend to the AkChin leasing authority for longer term. making the lease consistent with the requirements of the Arizona state law. The administration has expressed some. concerns about the legislation. however. at this time we do support it and ask that the House support moving this bill forward. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.