macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2003-07-17
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Madam Speaker. since President Bush declared the end to major combat operations on May 1. 2003. our brave servicemen and women have continued to die in Iraq at a rate of one per day. Let us look at the figures: 412 wounded. 86 killed. And still the administration continues to downplay the gravity of this situation. Our troops are facing insurgents who are clearly using guerrilla techniques and tactics. and even the new CENTCOM commander yesterday admitted that. in his opinion. this is a classic guerrillatype war. So why is it that the Secretary of Defense and the President are refusing to characterize it as such? We are starting down a slippery slope into another long. drawnout guerrilla conflict. once again. We need to find a viable solution fast. It is imperative that we give our troops all of the resources that they need to get the job done and confront the enemy. and we must continue to urge NATO to provide emergency assistance. We must bring our troops home as quickly as possible.
Date: 2003-07-17
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. subject to rule XXII. clause 7(C). I hereby announce my intention to offer a Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308. the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Speaker. I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: One. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference mitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 108214) on the bill making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30. 2004. and for other purposes. which was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Date: 2003-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. and I rise in support of this amendment. My colleagues want to argue that somehow to cut the public out of the process. to provide a public process that is discretionary is somehow going to help in the planning of our forests. Well. we passed a bill here to deal with fire. My colleagues want to keep talking about fire. but somehow they do not want to pass the bill. We sent it to the Senate. I do not agree with every provision in it. but where is the Senate bill? The fires are burning. we have a bill to address that. but now my colleagues want to use fire as an example to gut these regulations. We know what happens when the Forest Service does not involve the public or does not involve the scientists. We had a policy that almost destroyed the forests. either because they mindlessly cut down the forests and destroyed watersheds and destroyed streams. or they mindlessly did not deal with the forests and we built up such fuel loads that we lost them to catastrophic fires. Now. as a result of a public process. because communities are involved. individuals are involved that live in the area. organizations that know about this and scientists who care about this. we have a comprehensive planning proposal that deals with these forests. These forests are not simplistic. These are complicated. huge watersheds and ecosystems. and that is what we have learned from the scientists. Now my colleagues want to throw the scientists out of the room and treat these forests and treat these watersheds and treat these ecosystems somehow in a simplistic fashion. There is more to a forest than just the treatment of the fuel load. There is more to the habitat protection. There is more to the species protection than that. That is why these regulations are in play. What the Bush administration is suggesting is that we just take a simplistic approach. and that if we take a simplistic approach. the first thing we will want to do is to cut the public out of the process. Well. the people in the communities that are impacted by these forests have a stake in it. they have an economic stake. they have a lifestyle stake. they have a standard of living stake. so they are concerned about those forests. But it would be much easier to cut them out of it. It should be in the direction of the forest manager as to whether he wants to let them in at this point or that point or the next point in the process. Public participation is not a luxury. It is a right in this country. It is important to developing good policy. And that is why we should support the Udall amendment.
Date: 2003-07-17
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey. What the bill seeks to do. as many have already stated. is to overturn two comprehensive studies about the harm that snowmobiles do to the park. The fact of the matter is that those decisions were made in an arbitrary fashion. While they identified the least environmentally damaging alternative. they chose not to take it. They chose not to take it because their intent from the very beginning was to overturn the rule and to provide access for the snowmobiles. Not only did they provide access. but they increased the level of access. The fact of the matter is the National Park Service has made its finding that these impair and harm the parks. They cause harm to the individuals who are working in the park at that time. We ought not to overturn that. To bring up these coaches from the 1950s is not to deal with the issue in an honest fashion. The fact is that there are new coaches that were on order.. they have been put on hold because of the change in the rules. and we ought to protect the parks by bringing people in to enjoy the parks. to see the parks. to experience the parks. but do it in a manner which is environmentally compatible with the best interests of the parks. That is the fiduciary relationship that the Secretary of the Interior has on behalf of the parks and on behalf of the American people. It is not to introduce this source of pollution in an unlimited fashion.
Date: 2003-07-17
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the Child Tax Credit proposed by my colleague. the gentleman from Texas . Mr. Speaker. I am calling on the conferees to immediately adopt the major aspect of the bipartisan Senatepassed child tax bill. Working families need real relief. especially in these difficult. economic times when we are experiencing an unemployment rate that has jumped to 6.4 percent. Amazingly. despite the sluggish economy and our moral responsibility to help working families. House Republicans continue to stall the Senatepassed Child Tax Credit bill in conference. House Republicans got us into this mess in the first place since they deliberately chose to drop the Child Tax Credit from their millionaire tax cut bill. and they should get us out of it. Starting on July 25. millionaires will be getting their rebate checks. However. 4 million families across the country will not get a single dime. even though they are in the greatest need of a tax break. One of those 4 million families lives in my district. The Wolfalks are like many families across the country that play by the rules. Mrs. Wolfalk works full time as an administrative assistant. and her husband is disabled. They are raising five children on an annual income of $25.000. Mrs. Wolfalk told me that any additional money means that her son will not have to wear shoes with holes in the soles. It means that she will be able to buy additional uniforms for her children who currently wear handmedowns. With this extra money her children will be able to have new uniforms for school. school supplies and books. Things are tight for her family right now. so she assures me that any additional help would make a huge difference in her family. It breaks my heart to know that Congress can do something to help these families and Republicans are refusing to provide for families just like the Wolfalks. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct conferees on the Child Tax Credit. Let us show families like the Wolfalks that they matter as much as millionaires.
Date: 2003-07-18
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if I may inquire of my friend. the gentleman from New York. and I have great respect for the gentleman. whether he intends to use any of his time. We are obviously getting near the end.
Date: 2003-07-18
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself the remaining time. This is a question of basic fairness. It is a question of priorities. This House recently passed a $350 billion tax bill. weighted disproportionately to the very wealthiest in this country. And in the conference on that bill. we cut out the child tax credit for 12 million lowincome working families. The Senate solution Is to take $3.5 billion and address that issue to make sure that we treat those children with decency. The House Republican leadership has said no. They said. we will only accept that $3.5 billion addition if you pass an additional $83 billion tax cut package. So they are holding those kids hostage to this other package at the same time that we have a record $450 billion deficit in this country. As a result of those deficits which have been fueled by the tax cuts to the wealthiest. this past week we were $8 billion short on the No Child Left Behind bill. Mr. Speaker. we are being unfair to the basic priorities of the people of the country. We should adopt this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 2003-07-22
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia changed her vote from "no" to "aye." So the motion was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated for:
Date: 2003-07-23
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. when the PATRIOT Act was enacted in the aftermath of September 11. civil rights advocates expressed great concern about the potential for abuse of the law by law enforcement officials. Unfortunately. many of their concerns were warranted. The Inspector General recently delivered findings of a new government investigation to Congress. In it he states that his office acted on 34 credible PATRIOT Act violations in the first half of 2003 alone and that he received over 270 allegations of abuse. The complaints are diverse. They range from an officer holding a loaded gun to the head of a detainee. to a prison guard ordering a Muslim inmate to remove his shirt so that the guards could use it to shine his shoes. These incidents are intolerable and they demand further review. and I commend the Inspector General for bringing them to our attention.
Date: 2003-07-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

The question is. from what platform will those automobiles be made? The gentleman is suggesting that they are going to be made in Detroit and shipped to Chile. I am suggesting. no. it is more likely they are going to be made in Argentina or they are going to be made in Mexico or they are going to be made in Germany than they are going to be made in the United States. I appreciate that they will have access to the automobile market.
Date: 2003-07-23
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

If I could take back the balance of my time. the point is the fastestgrowing group in the United States. the fastestgrowing organization is unemployed Americans looking for jobs.
Date: 2003-07-23
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

of California. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the rule and to the Chile and Singapore trade agreements. I oppose these bills because of the inadequate labor provisions embodied in both. These agreements yet again point to the fact that the Bush administration is determined to undermine not only worker protections here in the United States but also abroad as well. Under the current language of these bills. only one workers rights provision is enforceable through dispute settlement. the obligation that a country enforce its own labor laws no matter how weak these labor laws may be. These FTAs give each country involved the option to gut their current labor laws to gain a trade advantage and face no consequences at all. The FTA with Jordan proved that a trade agreement could win the support of labor. but to do so it needs to contain a commitment that each country follow the guidelines set forth in the International Labor Organizations core labor standards. The trade agreements before us today are a gigantic step backwards and are vehemently opposed by labor groups. Why in our current economic situation are we putting American workers at risk? Is it not enough that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 6.4 percent? Is it not enough that the Bush administration has presided over the loss of 3 million private sector jobs. has failed to raise the minimum wage. allowing millions of older workers to lose half of their private pension benefits. and has denied unemployment benefits to millions of workers who exhausted their Federal unemployment workers benefits? One would think so but apparently that is not the case. My other concern is that these FTAs create new immigration policy in the context of a free trade agreement. This is a step into unchartered territory. The fact. is there is no specific authority in the Trade Act of 2002 to negotiate new visa categories or impose new requirements on the current temporary entry system. but that is exactly what hjs been done in the negotiations of these two agreements. I urge my colleagues to vote no on both agreements.
Date: 2003-07-23
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Time is running out for House Republicans to fix this mess. The GOPs irresponsible tax law leaves millions of working Americans out in the cold. It tells them quite frankly that they are simply not a priority for this administration. I am calling upon the conferees to immediately adopt the major aspects of the bipartisan Senatepassed child tax bill. Working and military families need real tax relief. not lip service. Particularly this is the case with the rising unemployment rate and our sluggish economy. The simple fact is that the economy continues to remain stagnant. The national deficit continues to rise at an astronomical rate and the unemployment rate remains at a high 6.4 percent. There seems to be no end in sight to these economic problems. Yet the Republicans continue to give tax cuts and child tax credits to the very wealthy in this country. I support the Senatepassed child tax credit bill. The bill would immediately help 6.5 million hardworking families. including many military families. In California. for example. expanding the child tax credit would help an additional 21 percent of families. One of the 4 million families that would greatly benefit from the expansion of the child tax credit lives in my district. The Ramirezes are like many families across the country that work hard to make ends meet every day and play by the rules. Mrs. Ramirez works fulltime as a teaches assistant and her husband is a mechanic. Both of them work fulltime. They are raising five children on an income of $24.000 a year. I spoke to Mrs. Ramirez and she told me. quote. that any additional money that they would receive through the child tax credit that right now does not apply to them would allow her to buy clothes. school supplies and food for her five children. Times are hard for her family. she told me. so any money that they would receive back in the form of a child tax credit would greatly help them make ends meet. We must act now to enact the Senate child tax credit bill. Families like the Ramirezes need and deserve our help. They need to be a priority for this administration. Conferees must adopt the Senatepassed child tax credit bill to help these families. Republicans should stop refusing to provide hardworking families like the Ramirezes with any tax relief whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Let us for once show families like the Ramirezes that they matter to this country just as much as the millionaire families do.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. on rollcall No. 432. which was the passage of the Singapore Trade Agreement. I inadvertently missed that vote. Had I been present. I would have voted "no."
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: LORETTA SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. as theonly Member of Congress that is a former Head Start child. I rise to speak about H.R. 2210. which will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the best early childhood education for their children.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: CORRINE BROWN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start. The Republican example of compassionate conservatism is destroying our best early childhood education program for our children. If it isnt broke. dont fix it. and. whatever you do. dont break it.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. Just yesterday a very contrite leader in the Republican Party acknowledged a chronic mistreatment of members of the minority of this House. On Monday. the former Republican leader talked about an emerging theme in this House. The theme is 10 years of oneparty rule is enough. The Republicans have had control for 10 years. They have gotten arrogant. They demean the institution. They demean democracy by virtue of their heavyhanded way they run the House. minority rights are downtrodden. and it is time for a change. The rule we have here today is a perfect example of the arrogant and abusive treatment that is directed not just at Democrats but 140 million Americans who sent us here to represent them and look out for their interests and particularly the children. Many of those Americans feel very strongly about Head Start programs. Many of their children participate in it. and they would like to know this program is going to be improved. But we have the same old arrogance we saw last week with the pension bill. .Last minute changes were made in this legislation at 11 oclock last night. When we asked the right to change our substitute to take into account those changes. we were told we would not be given the opportunity. So instead we will not be able to offer the amendments that people came before the Committee on Rules and asked for. So what is the result? The result is for the first time in the history of this program. for the first time in the history of this program. where we had Republican Presidents. Republican Congresses. Democratic Congress. we have always sought to improve this program. For the first time in history we have a partisan attack on Head Start. and for the first time in history we are undermining the performance standards. the quality standards in this program. And for the first time in history. we will be limiting the participation of children in Head Start. In the third year of this bill because of the caps on funding for the first time in history under any administration in any Congress. we will reduce the number of Head Start children that will be able to participate from the current population. No Republican President in the past has ever done that. No Congress has ever done that. No Democratic President has done that because we have had a national consensus. because this is the best program we have in the Nation. with the best results. You may want to do a lot of things with this program. but you cannot put it somewhere where a program has better results than Head Start. This attack should be rejected and this rule should be rejected.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. let me just begin first by saying that I take umbrage to comments that were made earlier from the gentleman from Florida that the female Democratic Members of the House were "a parade of mediocrity." These are amazing. talented women who are not mediocre. but extraordinary women as evidenced by their passion on this issue. Having said that. I rise in opposition to this flawed rule. We are considering a bad bill. the socalled School Readiness Act. H.R. 2210. without any options for improvement. There are so many things wrong with this bill that I cannot even begin to count them. A fair rule would have allowed us to fix some of those things. like providing adequate funding to expand Head Start. especially migrant and seasonal Head Start programs. and providing scholarships for Head Start teachers. H.R. 2210 begins an irreversible process of dismantling Head Start by promoting religious discrimination In hiring. shortchanging teachers by increasing requirements and denying services to eligible children by continuing to underfund Head Start. Worst of all. H.R. 2210 puts in danger years of proven success. For what? An experiment. a socalled pilot program that does not require States to even abide by national Head Start standards or have a sound preschool Infrastructure. Nearly four decades of research have established that Head Start delivers the intended services and improves the lives and the development of children and families that it serves. Head Start is about preparing children for school like Pablo Robles. a constituent of mine. It is about helping parents become better parents and advocates for their children and involved in their school work. Ultimately. Head Start is about giving lowincome children an opportunity to succeed in life. Republicans are just like scam artists trying to sell us an oceanfront property in the desert. but now they are trying to sell us a phony Head Start bill. We must not fall for it. especially when it is gambling with the lives of children. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the rule for H.R. 2210 and on the underlying bill. Let us not play with the future of our most vulnerable children. like Pablo Robles.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California . the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with Head Start.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 15 seconds just to say to my colleague. we do not know whether -this bill will improve the education of the children. but we do know that the language contained in this bill will weaken the education standards. will weaken the comprehensive services available to these children and will weaken the accountability of this program. Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan . subcommittee ranking member.
Date: 2003-07-24
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman. it is rather remarkable that the other side has discovered that the poorest children in the Nation do not do as well as the average children in the Nation. but what they ought to tell you is. these children do better than their peers that do not have an opportunity. and by the time they finish kindergarten. they are in the 50th percentile. That was the job. to try to get them ready for school. and they are accelerating as they go through kindergarten. but they somehow seem astonished that they cannot compete with the average child the first year in Head Start. when they are the most impoverished children in the Nation. Yes. we are dedicated to all of the changes in title I of this legislation. We are just not dedicated to the eradication of the Head Start program in title II. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin .