macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. there is not time to read a statement or anything else but to simply say. with all of these reasonable people sitting here. we are trying to do one thing with the McCarthy amendment. protect our children and keep the guns out of the criminals hands. It is so simple. I do not know what the NRA does to make so many people so fearful. But please protect the children tonight. Mr. Chairman. I rise tonight in opposition to the Dingell Amendment. This amendment does not address the problem we are trying to solve. Too many people who should not have access to guns can walk into a gun show and buy a gun. no questions asked. While we are trying to restrict the easy access. criminals and juveniles have had access to guns at gun shows. The Dingell amendment would make it easier on criminals and juveniles. The amendment too narrowly restricts the definition of a gun show. If you sell your guns at a gun show from a rolling cart. the Dingell amendment says you dont need to perform a background check on your customers. Slap some wheels on your booth and you dont have to follow the law. Further. if you decide not to "sponsor" the gun show under the reasons in the Dingell amendment. you dont have to do a background check either. Nor do you have to do background checks if there are less than ten vendors at the show. no matter the number of weapons sold. The amendment changes the Brady Law to give law enforcement agencies a mere 24 hours to do a background check. So. if you buy a gun at a gun show at 5:00 p.m. and the background check cannot be completed until Monday. you get the gun. Even with 72 hours to complete background checks. as its stands in the underlying legislation. the Justice Department says that 28% of felons. fugitives and other prohibited people would have gotten guns. The Dingell Amendment only increases that percentage. The Dingell Amendment would allow gun show dealers to complete the sale after the show with no background check required. This would give gun show sellers incentive to give out their home address and say "Stop by on your way home from the show and I can get you a gun with none of that background check hassle." These are only a few of the problems with the amendment. but I think they are enough. We cannot allow the NRA to ghostwrite this legislation. This amendment is simply the last gasps of the NRA to hold on to anything they have. The NRA is fighting in the face of common sense. This amendment is worse than the law that currently exists. The American people have asked us to pass common sense gun safety laws. This is not it. Oppose the Dingell Amendment.
Date: 1999-06-17
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment on behalf of all of the mothers and grandmothers of this Nation.
Date: 1999-06-23
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. as we stand here this morning. we know that we are in the greatest country in the world. We have been responsible for finding all kinds of interventions for our health care. and we enjoy the best skill and best knowledge in the world for health care. Yet American people do not have access to that care. the care that they have paid for through their tax dollars for the research. And yet we beg now and plead with the HMOs and the managed care insurance to allow people to have access to just basic health care. They need access to just needed care. They do not want to be treated onesizefitsall. Whether you are 7 or 70 in this country under HMOs. if you have got a certain diagnosis. you all get treated the same. That does not address individual needs. Doctors need the freedom to practice the art and the science that they have learned and that they are capable of doing. They do not have that right under our present system. They are pushed out on the line and given instructions by the HMOs. and yet the HMOs do not even want to be responsible for what they tell the physicians to do. It is time for change. The American people are calling for it.
Date: 1999-06-29
Speaker: ERIC LOFOREN (democrat)
Chamber: S

(Benefits Consulting Group. Watson Wyatt). The traditional plan does a very good job for about one person out of 20. But for the rest of us who have changed jobs a couple times In our career. the traditional plan really doesnt deliver. because it rewards long career with one employer and that just isnt the situation for most people. KORRY. The response of many large employers--so far about 300 of themhas been to quietly switch to a new plan that turns the traditional pension on its head. Lofgren. who helps companies formulate these new cash balance plans. says they spread the wealth around so more employees prosper. perhaps 19 out of 20. But thats not the only reason companies are lining up to make the switch. Edgar Pouk (ph). a New York pension law attorney. says that the real winners in these plan conversions are the employers.
Date: 1999-06-30
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker. let me again emphasize that I am willing to join iny colleagues in legislating initiatives against unscrupulous abortion clinics advertising and. as well. any enticement to young people to do something that they would not want to do. This is not this kind of legislation. This is a legislation that undermines a young womans right to choose and the ability to counsel with someone other than her family for this terribly. terribly important and tragic decision that she may have to make. Mr. Speaker. I include for the RECORD a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics that includes the Society for Adolescent Medicine. dated June 14. 1999. that opposes this legislation. I think these two entities certainly have great involvement with our children.
Date: 1999-06-30
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

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: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I rise in very strong support of the McGovernCampbellHolt and Hoeffel amendment. and I rise also to commend the chairman of this committee. the gentleman from Ohio
Date: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I disagreed with it then. and I disagreed before that was done. I mean. I think that this fund. and. as my colleagues know. I have introduced legislation to provide for the full funding. the full funding on water conservation. half to the Federal side and half to the State side. and an overwhelming number of Members of this House of Representatives supported either my bill or Mr. YOUNGs bill to do that because they are hearing from their communities and also hearing what my colleagues have been telling us about the backlog in national parks and national lands of this country that needs to be done there. We have starved these funds. It has been a bipartisan effort to starve these funds. I am not blaming the gentleman from Ohio . He has come in almost at the end of the show where it is even more difficult to try to get his bill out of committee and meet the demands of this country. But that has been a bipartisan effort. but the time has come to reverse it. The time has come to reverse it. and this amendment is a modest step in the efforts to do that.
Date: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. this amendment is very simple. Currently. the CNMI territdries have a builtup account of unspent Federal moneys in excess of $80 million that they have been unable or unwilling to match that we have appropriated to them. That is over 5 years of funding under the current regime that we have for these purposes. Because they have been unwilling or unable to match that funding. I am suggesting that we take $4 million out of that and put it into the very important and bipartisanly supported Urban Parks and Recreation amendment known as the UPARR program for recreation recovery. Thii $4 million would allow a number of States that had had -their proposals for grants turned down because funding was not provided: Alabama. 200.000. California. 630.000. Florida. 288.000. Georgia 569.000. Maryland. 249.000. Massachusetts. 600.000. Texas. 330.000. North Carolina. 88.000. Ohio. 500. These are States that have come forward and have programs to provide for the recovery of recreational facilities. wornout facilities. We heard earlier today about the problems that soccer teams and Little League teams and Pop Warner teams are having to find facilities to offer recreational opportunities. That is why this legislation is supported by the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues. The police associations understand the importance of giving young people constructive activities to participate in from 3 to 6 in the afternoon. but if they do not have these opportunities. unfortunately some of them go into crime and other destructive behavior. We believe it is important to fund these efforts. There is so many. there is such a backlog of need. it will not harm the CNMI due to the fact that they have a tremendous backlog of appropriated moneys that this committee has appropriated and that they have been unable to spend. This committee has made essentially the same decision in removing $5 million from that amount of money for the purposes of giving it to other territories who are in need of this. who have programs. who have the demand. are willing to come up. in many instances. with the money that is to be spent with a match by the local effort. I would not support this effort if this money was to come out of the other territories budgets for that purposes. but because of the way the rules changed. I have to offer it in this fashion. but it is my intent to keep consistent with what the committee did with respect to other funds with regard to CNMI. and I would hope that the committee could support this amendment. As my colleagues know. there has been a dramatic resurgence in support from environmental organizations. from the Conference of Mayors. from the League of Cities and from the Police Athletic Leagues. from the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. all of which are prepared and are raising money to help in this effort. and this Federal money. again. is used on a matching basis. Local -governments must make this a priority. they must put up their own money. and this money is used to help out so many of those States like Ohio and Washington.
Date: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that qualifier. and I tried to say that in my rushed opening statement here. That would not be my intent. As my colleagues know. this UPARR money is part of the Presidents request that my colleagues have tried to deal with. and I guess what I am counting on is. just as the gentleman tried to find additional moneys for the territories out of this account. that his creative talents would also find moneyperhaps for UPARR. which has such tremendous support on both sides of the aisle. If that is not able to happen. then I would not expect my colleague then to go to the next step. which would be to take money from the territories.
Date: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be joined by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Washington in offering this amendment. This is intended to be a friendly amendment. one that is consistent with the committees recommendation in its report on page 91. After many years of debate and close votes on this floor. this amendment would put the House clearly on record to end the controversial practice of using taxpayer subsidies to construct roads for commercial timber sales on national forest land. It is a straightforward amendment. Mr. Chairman. the taxpayers have helped construct over 483.000 miles of authorized roads in our national forests. That is a road system that is eight times. eight times longer than the interstate highway system. enough to circle the globe 15 times. While the administration has been happy to request and Congress has been happy to provide funding for new road construction in the past years. we have not been very adept at providing funds for maintaining existing roads. As a result. the Forest Service estimates that there is a backlog of $8.4 million in capital improvements needed on forest roads for heavily used passenger vehicles. Less than 20 percent of the roads are being maintained to the safety and design standards. Under Secretary Jim Lyons and Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck have testified repeatedly before Congress that it is fiscally and environmentally irresponsible to keep building new roads when they do not have the budget to address the annual maintenance needs or begin to address the backlog of maintenance on the existing road system. While I appreciate the committee has provided a $19 million increase in road maintenance. that is still much less than the $500 million annually needed that the agency estimates is necessary to catch up with the backlog of needs. Recognizing that they have a major problem on their hands. the Forest Service is ifi the midst of an 18month moratorium on new road construction in roadless areas in most national forests. The purpose of this timeout is to develop a longterm road policy and identify nonessential roads and those roads that should be reconstructed and maintained for safe and environmentally sound practices. In my view. the remaining roadless areas in our national forests are vital reserves and must be maintained for clean water. fish and wildlife habitat. lowimpact recreation. and wilderness values. I have joined with the gentleman from New York . the gentleman from Washington . and the gentleman from California . along with 162 of our colleagues. in urging the administration to come up with longterm protections of these critical roadless areas. In closing. I wish to recognize the chairman. the gentleman from Ohio
Date: 1999-07-13
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. and I just wanted to say I was remiss in not mentioning his name when I was thanking those who had made this agreement possible so that the chairman and the ranking member could come to this agreement. "As the gentleman knows. he has the battle scars of many contentious battles on this floor over forest policy and road policy. and I want to thank him for his efforts last year. along with the members of the committee that dealt with the first step in this process. and for his support for this amendment. and again to the chairman and to the ranking member for their efforts in the markups of this legislation before it came to the floor.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. the morning papers are recounting what took place in the Senate yesterday when the Republicans blocked the efforts to try to provide better health care to people who have health insurance. When the Democrats offered amendments to make it easier for women to choose their primary care physician. to choose an obstetrician/gynecologist. the Republicans blocked that effort. When the Democrats tried to offer an effort to make it easier for people who are denied services to have grievances against the HMO and the managed care corporations. the Republicans blocked that effort. When the Democrats tried to make it easier for people to go to the nearest emergency room in an emergency and know that they would be reimbursed for going to that emergency room. the Republicans killed that effort. However. the Republicans did decide that they would let women who had had .a mastectomy stay in the hospital a couple days longer. Apparently. the Republicans will not let us go to the doctor to detect a cancer. but if we have the cancer they will let us stay in the hospital 2 days extra.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take a lot of time with this amendment. but I want to join the gentleman from Ohio
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman would continue to yield. the fact is. improvements are being made. The public appreciates those improvements. These places are much more friendly to the user. Yes. there is a problem if visitors go to a remote trailhead. and the Forest Service ought to think about if these people ought to be ticketed. The people made the effort to buy a pass. But that is no reason to curtail this program. It is 6 percent. and the fact of the matter is the gentleman knows we cannot find that 6 percent anywhere else. Especially in this budget. The gentleman has fought off all kinds of issues to cut off resources from this bill. We have an issue that is pending to cut off resource from this bill. Without these user fees. the fact of the matter is that the public is going to be denied the kind of access and the use that they want to put these forests to. I appreciate the problem faced by people in the local area. and it is a tough one. They have always viewed this as their "divine right" to enter in and out of the forests. But somebody has to maintain them. and we ought to continue this program and support the committee on this and reject this amendment.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. and I thank her for her statement and wish to associate myself with her remarks. As she quite properly points out. this has very. very limited impact on the total amount of trapping that takes place on the refuges.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks and associate myself with his remarks. This research is. in fact. very important. If somebody does not like the title of some particular research grant. they have now decided they just going to cut it. As my colleagues know. if they did not go out and talk to the people in the south about the forests and how they were going to manage it and how they were going to deal with it. somebody would be in here blistering the Forest Services rear end saying. "Youre changing policy without talking to the people in the area." We are having big deliberations in the State of California about the future of the Sierra Nevada. all kinds of parties are involved in this because those forests are becoming less and less timber resources and more and more recreational assets for the 30 million people in the State of California. Do my colleagues know what? The Forest Service has to go out and do that kind of research to see what the people in the small communities think. see what the people in the foothills think. see what the people in the LA basin think about these resources. about the management of that. Now this one. I guess they are talking to people in the southern United States about the southern forests. But as my colleagues know. it is kind of the height of intellectual illiteracy to just decide they do not like the title. so we are going to cut this money without any investigation as to exactly what is taking place here. and the fact of the matter is that many. many of the forests. as the gentleman has pointed out. are under serious threat from all kind of diseases and what have you. and this research is fundamental to that proposition in trying to keep the productivity of the forest up. to try to keep these forests surviving into the future so people can use them for multiple uses.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. I want to emphasize that this amendment leaves salvage harvesting intact. There is a separate fund for salvage harvesting which in the last fiscal year totaled approximately $110 million. And my amendment leaves that fund intact.
Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. the gentleman makes a very important point. His amendment leaves intact enough money in this account plus the salvage amendment to go ahead and harvest the 3.5 million board feet that we anticipate harvesting this year. So we have the opportunity by going to the administrations number in the Fish and Wildlife account to improve the forests. to improve their productivity. and to improve the multiple use of those forest. The salvage account remains intact. as does $197 million out of the timber management account. and we.should approve the amendment.
Date: 1999-07-15
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. yesterday was a sad day for our Nation. a sad day because the Republicans threw in the towel. They gave up and they capitulated. Rather than make the tough choices to save Social Security. to save Medicare. and to pay down a $5 trillion debt. Republicans simply gave up and did what they thought was the easy thing to do. provide for an irresponsible tax cut that forecloses the financial future for many. many. many Americans who must rely on Social Security. who must rely on Medicare. and to the next generation that is hoping to have low interest rates. hoping to have a good economy so they can buy a house and form families and raise their children. But. no. rather than pay down the debt. the Republicans would rather risk high interest rates for the whole Nation and for small businesses. We tried this once in 1980. It has taken us 20 years. I repeat. it has taken us 20 years to dig out of that debt that the Republicans gave us in 1980. Now. for the first time in history. we have an opportunity to save Social Security. to save Medicare and to pay down the debt. But the Republicans have given up and thrown in the towel. How little courage they have.
Date: 1999-07-15
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is troubling. and there is a difference between the two parties. The Democrats want to try to solve Social Security. improve Medicare. and try to secure our youth from guns. Each day in America 14 kids age 19 and under are killed by guns. In 1996. almost 5.000 juveniles were killed with a firearm. In 1997. 84 percent of the murder victims age 13 to 19 were killed with guns. Mr. Speaker. 59 percent of the students in grades six through twelve know where to get guns if they want one. And it seems that no one cares about how many they get. Twothirds of these students say they can acquire a firearm within 24 hours. It is time. Mr. Speaker. that we address this issue and get on with the concerns of the American people. Kids and guns do not mix. yet Republicans refuse to consider common sense gun safety measures that would only serve to protect kids. It is time for us to do it. Mr. Speaker. America screams out for us to protect our youth.