macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-05-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1925. the Runaway. Homeless. and Missing Children Protection Act. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I would like to begin by commending the subcommittee chairman. the gentleman from Michigan . our ranking member. the gentleman from Texas . and the bills author. the gentleman from Georgia . for their leadership in fashioning a sensible bipartisan consensus in this very important area of public policy. Our Nations most vulnerable youth needed us to set aside our differences and come together and step up to the challenge of getting them the help they need and deserve. I think in this bill we have done tha. Mr. Speaker. compared to the size of some of the other reauthorization bills that have come out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. some may say this is a small bill. But I think we should make no mistake about it. This bill will be a big deal to the youth and the thousands of homeless and runaway children who. by virtue of our actions today. will have a better opportunity to reclaim their lives with the Federal support this bill provides. It will help throw many youth whose lives are sinking that life jacket they so desperately need. For the first time. this legislation includes the specific authorization for Federal programs designed to help runaway and homeless youth. $105 million for fiscal year 2004. which represents a 19 percent increase for the worthy outreach. screening. counseling. referral. shelter services. and other services funded under the act. It includes maternity group homes to support teen mothers care for their young children as they begin their walk down the road to financial independence. It sets the age of eligibility for needed services at 18. so vulnerable teens are not summarily kicked out of programs helping them turn their lives around after an arbitrary period of time. It sensibly ensures that services for homeless and runaway youth are well coordinated with other Federal programs. like the McKinneyVento Act. the Work Force Investment Act. and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. It also reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. which has proven itself an invaluable tool to law enforcement since its creation nearly two decades ago. Finally. Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the substantial bipartisan majority that turned back what I believe was an ideologicallydriven attempt in committee to handcuff public health * officials in efforts to ensure the reproductive health of the youth we are trying to reach with this legislation. Our unity across the aisle on this committee was a triumph for good science and common sense. Mr. Speaker. I believe this is a very - worthy piece of legislation and a good response to a critical public policy need. Again. I want to commend the leadership of the conmittee leaders on both sides of the aisle and again. the author of the bill. the gentleman from Georgia .
Date: 2003-05-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

areaMr. Speaker. I offer an amendment In (A) defined as an interface community on the nature of a substitute. page 753 of volume 66 of the Federal Register.
Date: 2003-05-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I would just say that I think that this process that we have seen with this bill is indicative. It gives us warning about the Forest Service process. Here we see this bill being rammed through the House of Representatives. no amendments being offered. on a day when we do not have a full schedule. but the intent and the purpose is to ram it through without the full participation and the deliberations of this body. It is reflective of what is in this bill. It is an effort to ram through these treatment programs. the cutting programs. the logging programs. the fire treatment programs. and limit the public participation to the greatest extent possible. That is what is wrong with this legislation. The suggestion that somehow we are going to unilaterally turn over the decision on whether or not to protect old forests. or protect old growth. to protect large trees. to mark gray unilaterally without review. is like turning the banking system over to Bonnie and Clyde. It just does not make any sense in terms of the wellbeing of these forests. in the longterm. multiple use of these forests. If you are just out there hunting for large trees to cut and you need a rationale to cut them. then this bill will give you the ability to do that. because itthrows open the doors to logging of those large trees that matter the most to the communities in the West. matter to the citizens that we represent. matter to the citizens sense in our State. and that is what this bill does.
Date: 2003-05-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 2003-05-20
Speaker: TOM UDALL (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Now

Mexico moves to recommit the bill. H.R. 1904. to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions to report the bill forthwith with the following amendment: Strike Sections 106 and 107.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak out against the Readiness and Range Prevention Initiative proposed by the Department of Defense. This initiative would provide exemptions to the United States military from enforcing and abiding by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. two very important pieces of legislation that have for decades provided safeguards and protections to our environment. Many of our bases are home to critical habits and endangered species. especially. for example. Camp Pendleton. which is very near my district. where there are currently 17 endangered species. Mr. Speaker. this initiative is harmful. it is unnecessary. and it is an attack on our environment. Laws already exist that provide exemptions for the military for purposes of national security. The military just has not bothered to enact those. There is absolutely no need for the type of broadbased policy such as the Readiness and Range Prevention Initiative. We were able to defeat this measure last year. and I am confident that we will do it again this year. There is no evidence that suggests that our military should be exempted from these laws.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. As we have heard. tucked into this bill. Mr. Chairman. which is so important to our national defense. is a provision that I believe could have longterm negative consequences for our military readiness and effectiveness. It is a provision that will rewrite the rules for 700.000 civil service employees in the Department of Defense. Mr. Chairman. in our committee. the Committee on Government Reform. when the representatives from the Department of Defense came to testify. they made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result of a team effort. a team effort between the military and between the civil servants within the Department of Defense that provided them the support. It was a true partnership. Yet. Just a few weeks after our military success in Iraq. the Pentagon launched what can only be described as a sneak. surprise attack on the rights of those civil servants within the Department of Defense. It is very ironic that Just a few weeks after this body passed legislation endorsing the good work of public employees. that we would take this action that treats them so unfairly. Mr. Chairman. there has been an amendment proposed that would strip these provisions or change these provisions in the bill. It should be a bipartisan amendment. it should be a nonpartisan amendment. because otherwise what this bill does is gives the Secretary of Defense. not just this Secretary but any Secretary of Defense. Republican or Democrat down the road. the unchecked authority to rewrite the rules for civil servants within the Department of Defense. the rules with respect to hiring. firing. pay. bonuses. It will greatly damage our security if we open the Department of Defense to party politics. We want a personnel system that rewards people based on merit. not based on political favoritism. We want. for example. our procurement offlcers to be looking out for the public interest. to be looking out for our national interests. not the interests of the most politically connected contractors. I strongly support pay for performance. but it should be meritbased performance. not a political loyalty test. Last December we* saw the big bonuses going to those who were political appointees within the administration. I think this bill. which is so important to our national security. should not contain this one provision that I think will damage our national security interests in the long run.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I mayconsume. Today I offer an amendment about freedom. safety and choice. Members of Udall (NM) Van Hollen Velazquez Visclosky Waters Watson watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Wilson (NM) Woolsey Wu Wynn Sweeney the Armed Services are entitled to a quality of life equal to that of the Nation they are pledged to .defend. Whether you are prolife or prochoice. agree or disagree with the merits of reproductive freedom. the.facts remain. the women of the United States have a constitutional right to reproductive services. So why would we choose to place an overseas female soldier or military dependent into a subclass of citizenship? Currently. servicewomen may fly back to the United States to obtain reproductive services but only after they have authorization from commanding officers and can find a space on a military transport. If your daughter. wife. sister or friend had to make a tough reproductive choice and were stationed overseas. do you believe that as adult women they should be required to disclose this information to their commanding officer? Would you want to put her on the plane alone? Our servIcewomen and dependents deserve better. My amendment allows military personnel and their dependents serving overseas to use their private funds to obtain safe. legal abortion services in overseas military hospitals. No Federal funds would be used. This amendment will only affect United States military facilities overseas. and my amendment will not violate host country laws. It does not compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle to perform one. It will. however. open up reproductive services at bases in countries where abortion is legal. Vote for the rights of our servicewomen and dependents abroad. Vote for the Sanchez amendment. Madam Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California and the original sponsor of this bill way back when.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California . one of my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California . another member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman. I would remind Members there Is a clause that doctors do not have to perform these services if they are opposed to them. We are not making medical personnel do something that they are opposed to or do not believe in. Madam Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois .
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to remind my colleagues that no public funds are used under this amendment. The individual who wishes to have an abortion would have to pay from her own funds. Madam Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is quite obvious to me that my colleague who just spoke has not recently received any type of a bill from a hospital. because if he would see that. he would understand that even right down to the last vitamin or pill that is administered in a hospital. you are charged when you are there. So the cost of this would be borne by the woman and her family. Madam Chairman. I yield 1 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
Date: 2003-05-21
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I close by reminding my colleagues that this is a bipartisan issue. We have Planned Parenthood. NARAL. the College of OBGYN physicians who support this amendment. I would like to close finally with a voice from a woman who found herself in this situation while stationed in the Army in Germany. She says: "I chose to fly back to the States because I did not trust foreign doctors. It cost me over $800 for the trip. It would have cost me more. but I went by military hop. Plus the $300 for the abortion. not counting the fact that I had to use my vacation time. Luckily my trip was approved in time for me to get back before I reached the end ofmy first trimester. I can remember thinking at the time how unfair it was that I had to resort to these drastic measures. Had I been in the States. it would have not been an issue. I can remember being resentful of my fellow male comrades who were able to have vasectomies paid for by the military in Germany and yet I had to use my leave time and my own funds to fly back to the U.S. for what is also a reproductive choice. Women in the military are denied their right to control their reproductive process while abroad. although men in the military enjoy the same rights abroad as they do in the States." She says. "I believe it is time that the women of this country enjoy the same rights their male counterparts enjoy. for that is what I think I was fighting for when I was stationed there." Support the Sanchez amendment.
Date: 2003-05-22
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in frustration over the Committee on Rules failure to allow the Cooper Civil Service Bill of Rights to be offered today as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. On the day that Congress left for the Easter recess. the Department of Defense presented Congress with the largest civil service reform package in nearly half a century. Impacting nearly 620.000 Department of Defense civilian employees. the proposed bill strips workers of fundamental protections. including the right to collective bargaining and the right to belong to a union without fear of discrimination. In fact. it does not even guarantee overtime pay for firefighters. Although I agree that the Department of Defense civil service reforms are necessary. the manner in which these reforms have been moving through this body is disgraceful. Congress is doing a disservice to our hardworking men and women at the Department of Defense by failing to bring this issue up for a debate. The Cooper amendment would have restored. among many things. critical worker protections. including veterans preferences. freedom from political patronage. collective bargaining rights. membership in labor organizations. and protection from discrimination. Mr. Speaker. the leadership in this body has failed our Department of Defense employees.
Date: 2003-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. Members of the House. 2 years ago President Bush brought a $1 trillion tax cut to the American public in the name of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Since the time that he has done that. the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs. 2.7 million Americans out of work. the deficit has soared dramatically. and the economy is moving sideways. at best. Now what does the President suggest? Today he suggests w6cut taxes again. another $1 trillion. and that $1 trillion is supposed to create jobs. Very shortly President Bush will reign over the loss of 3 million jobs since he has come to office. The President keeps putting forth this plan as a means of creating jobs. What it has done is it has killed 3 million jobs. The Presidents economic plan has yet to create its first job. its first job. but it has killed 3 million jobs in the American economy. The American public ought to understand. it is a $1 trillion giveaway to the richest people in the country and a job killer for working Americans.
Date: 2003-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

we ignore the fact that States are now Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for considering Draconian cuts to Med- yielding me this time. icaid and other vital services for our It is certainly understandable why most vulnerable citizens? The chair- the chairman of the committee would man would say yes. Do we ignore the not want us to talk about this bill. It fact that at least one State. Kentucky. is certainly understandable that he is even considering letting prison in- would not want the American public to mates out early to save money? learn from us that this is a trilliondolMr. Speaker. that puffedup piety. lar tax bill that plunges this country that dripping sanctimony that so often faster and further into debt than anylaces the lectures on fiscal responsi- time in history. He certainly would not bility that our Republican friends are want us to tell the American people sO fond of making would have far more that when they did their first tax bill credibility if the GOP actually prac- of a trillion dollars 2 years ago. that ticed what it preached. But the party since that time we lost 2.7 million jobs. that turned record budget surpluses the economy has faltered. the market into record deficits. the party that has faltered and the Bush administrasquandered a projected $5.6 trillion sur- tion and the Republicans in the House plus. and the party that later today in- and the Senate do nothing. tends to vote for a $350 billion bill. it They do nothing but take care of the says. but everybody on this floor who is Bush class in America against the midat all honest knows it is a trillion dol- dle class in America. I am sure the genlars. plunging us deeper into debt. de- tleman from California would not like manding a record increase in the statu- to have us tell that to the American tory debt limit should not be lecturing public. just as he did not want us to anyone on fiscal responsibility. tell the American public when we had a This motion instructs conferees not substitute and they denied us time to to increase the deficit. which the CBO. talk about it. they denied us the right now projects will be well over $300 bil- to offer. Why? Because we had a sublion. and not to include language to stitute that was fair and fast acting. raise the debt limit. Our Democratic would have created a million jobs and alternative. of course. was paid for no longterm deficit. They could not with offsets. The GOP bill is not. figure out how to construct one. They Ladies and gentlemen. if you care did not have the discipline to construct about your country. if you care about it. They did not have the morals to honesty with the American public. if construct it. They did not have the you care about any personal responsi- ethics to construct it. so they just dove bility that we have as Members of the into the pit of debt and deficits and red Congress. you will vote for this motion ink. to instruct and against this package And now as they emerge from that that will harm our country. pit. it drips off of them. deficits. red
Date: 2003-05-22
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker. I think it is outrageous that the rule proposed by the Republican leadership denies the 435 Members of this House the opportunity to vote on the amendment to restore certain rights and protections for the 700.000 civil servant employees within the Department of Defense. rights and protections that are stripped away under the underlying bill. It is particularly sad to see this just after those civil servants joined together with our military in such a successful military operation in Iraq. Yet this bill does away with so many protections. For example. it. takes away the timehonored protections to ensure that civil servants will have their professional career advancement based on merit and professional conduct. rather than political litmus tests. F- 1215 -Do we want our contract officers. do we want our procurement officers to be looking over their shoulder to see if their decision is based on what is best for the taxpayer or best politically for someone in the Defense Department? And yet this 5ill eliminates those protections that have been in place since Teddy Roosevelt. Let me just say that the amendment that was proposed. and I will read a provision of the amendment that is being denied an opportunity for us to vote on: "An employee shall have the right to be free of favoritism or discrimination in connection with hiring. tenure. promotion or other conditions of employment due to the employees political opinion or affiliation." But they do not want us to have an opportunity to vote on that provision. The head of the nonpartisan General Accounting Office. David Walker. when he was asked about this issue. said. "I do not believe that we have the infrastructure in place in order to effectively and fairly move to a more performancebased compensation structure at this time." In response to a question. he said. "I think the agency has to demonstrate that they have these systems and controls in place before they should be given the flexibility." Mr. Speaker. do we want our Defense Department. the civil servants. to be run using professional judgment. which I think is in the best interest of national security. or do we want them to be driven more by political considerations? I think our national security depends on a nonpolitical. professional civil service. and it is very disappointing that the amendment was not made in order.
Date: 2003-05-22
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. we are spending $100 billion and tragically the loss of young men and womens lives in a war in Iraq that was supposed to be about getting the weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam Husseins hands so he could not give them to the terrorists. So far. we have not found those weapons of mass destruction. But the gentleman from South Carolina pointed out to us that there are 5.000 tons of weapons of mass destruction in chemical weapons and gases and sarin chemical that we know exactly where they are. But the Republicans will not allow an amendment in order to protect Americans from the assault from these weapons when they fall into the hands of terrorists. We know exactly where 5.000 tons are. We have not found one ounce in Iraq. There is also nuclear material in the same area of the former Soviet Union and in Central Asia and elsewhere in the world. But they will not allow tis to clean it up. They will not allow us to secure it. They are compromising the security of this Nation because this is more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists than anything that Saddam Hussein had.