macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-01-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from New York for allowing me to address the House. Mr. Chairman. as a 20year member of the Texas Legislature. both in the House and Senate. I know about unfunded mandates. and I also oppose them. but I also know that the State mandates on the counties and cities and the counties and the cities mandate on their citizens without providing their funds to those citizens. even our schools mandate on their citizens without providing it. and my children went to public school. and they were mandated to buy a workbook even through we pay property taxes and State taxes. but they could not come to school if they did no. pay for that workbook or the folder. So there are mandates from the Federal Government. from the State government. and from the local government. and this concept needs to go forward if it is going to pass here. too. I support the concept of restricting unfunded mandates. but I am also concerned in hearing my other colleague from Texas talk about respect for this institution. How can we have respect for this institution when this bill did not have a public hearing during this session of Congress? I think we need to learn the full impact it will have on air pollution. nuclear wastes. and so I expect we will have a lot of amendments to try and clarify it. I hope we have clean water in New York when I come to visit the gentleman because that way I would like to drink it. but I would also like to make sure we do not become a Divided States and continue to be a United States.
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Chairman. I move to strike the uisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of Skaggs amendment. Let me say. colleague from Illinois who was I earlier and talked about his frustrat with the trip reduction. I was in t meeting with him last week with EPA because we were concerned ab emissions tests in Texas. the sysi that the State of Texas had set up. But one of the problems he may ognize though is that that was a st plan that was established. And it w. state plan that put so much weight emissions. so much weight on indus and also the trip reduction. altho EPA did come in and give him s( tle- flexibility on trip reduction just like I on- think they are doing with us on our .his emissions testing in Texas. But it was a state plan. In In 1990. the Clean Air Act was passed in here with bipartisan support and ber- signed by a Republican President. and I . be am sure it had a vote somewhere on it the on the floor that said. this gives the flexibility of the States. It may be a ank mandate on the States to reduce your pollution. but it is giving the States ove the ability to make that decision on of their own. Pollution knows no boundaries. We i to are just fortunate in the State of Texas aan that if we pollute in Houston it is all rep- within our boundaries most of the Ls a time. We do not have that in other ct. parts of the country. whether it be the Lgo. Midwest or the Northeast or California erv- to the mountain States. En- So that is why I think it is important ime that we prioritize and say. we are nia against unfunded mandates. We recogs of nize that it is wrong. But there are also om- things that bring us together as a ant country. Pollution does not know state lines or county lines or city lines. And t in that is why oftentimes in Congress we ave have to address it. and the Clean Air nog Act is one of those examples. But they the can be fine tuned by our States to recsub- ognize whether it is emissions or by Lply the trip reduction. and my colleague ent from Illinois has had so much trouble with it. They have responded in there re- and they are working on it here in ive- Washington. .. is Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman. will out the gentleman yield? y of Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield bur- to the gentleman from California.
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. Representative COLLLNS of Illinois is talking about her amendment mainly on airport safety and talking about airline safety. Let mebring up another point. Just like my colleague from California. though he has a little bit further to go. but I go home every weekend to be in my district in Texas. which is just halfway to California. But I also feel a lot safer when I have to go through that airport security and those scan devices. simply because it makes me safer in the Houston airports. That was not put there because the city of Houston. our airport authority. did that out of the goodness of their heart. They did that because there were Federal mandates to do that. Also. they utilized enterprise funds. local funds that are made up of money that we pay as passengers to provide that airport security. We have some of the best. secure airports in the world because a lot of us have been to a lot of other places and we know we are really concerned about walking through some of those machines and we do not know if they work or not. But we know in our airports they do because they have to. Again. if we could compete. whether it be Houston. San Diego. Los Angeles. or somewhere else. we might have different standards for each of them if we do not have some kind of recognition nationwide of airport security needs. not just from terrorism. or pilot training or private pilot training. That is a mandate. It is in some ways funded because I am sure FAA provides some funding for it. But some of it is unfunded because it is also made up of local tax dollars and local money paid for out of airline tickets that pays for that. So it is unfunded from the FedOral Government. We may vote for that next week. if there is some new technology that comes out. but what is going to happen if we pass this without recognizing that the next Congress may say we are in a bad budget. we are in a $4 trillion debt. But I am willing to pay for funded mandates. sure I will. but I am not sure that there are going to be 218 Members of Congress who will do it. So we will see the standards in our airports possibly go down because of the threat of terrorism. Also. we do not have to go very far to know some countries only pay lip service to it whereas in the United States we put teeth into it. It is paid for most of the time by local funds because they. also benefit by having a major airport intheir community.
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

And I understand that. and. reclaiming my time. we will. we very well may do that some future time. if we find some new technology. It may cost a million dollars to provide new technology to discover some new type of weapon that somebody may try and smuggle in our airport. We must fund it from here. but alsp those local communities benefit from having that airport there. so they should also participate in. That is what we are doing now. I just want to say we all are supporting. and I support. the bill. I just want to make sure that we recognize that some future Congress may say. "Oh. no. thats an unfunded mandate." and the standard of living that we have become accustomed to in these great States will go down because some future Congress may say. "Well. we have to take an unfunded mandate vote." and I am so against unfunded mandates. but we cannot increase the national debt because of that. We are just going to have to take our gamble. and may be some terrorism from wherever else in the world may be able to slip through. We need to recognize that today when we are debating this bill because it will have an impact on the gentlemans and my constituents.
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me just mention that there are some exceptions in the bill that we are amending on section 4. and. as the gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned. No. 5. it is necessary for national security. ratification or implementation of international treaty. This amendment may be under this bill right now. But since we did not have a public hearing. we could not ask those questions of the experts in the FAA. We were not able to find out. and so that is why we are havingto take this time on the floor of the House tonight.
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I offer amendments 73 and 153 and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. Portman Poshard Pryce Quillen Radanovich Ramstad Regula Riggs Roberts Roemer Rogers Rohrabacher RosLehtinen Roth Roukema Royce Salmon Sanford Saxton Scarborough Schaefer Schiff Seastrand Seasenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Shuster Sisisky Skeen Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Solomon Souder Spence Stearns Stenholm Stockman Stump Talent Tanner Tate Tauzin Taylor (NC) Thomas Thornberry Torkildsen Upton Vucanovich Waldholtz Walker Walsh Wamp Watts (OK) Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller White Whitfield Wicker Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL) Zeliff Zimmer Rush Slaughter Tiahrt
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

In brief. let me say Republicans and many Democrats are going along with this effort. and want us to believe most man.dates of Federal Government are not reasonable simply because the Feds love to meddle in our lives. While there is no denying that Congress and Federal bureaucracy do have a tendency to overregulate. -that is not always the case. The point needs to be remembered that many of the regulations were adopted in response to lack of action by local or State officials to protect peoples lives and rights. If we do not do this on nuclear power. what can we do with waste disposal?
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts . Mr. Chairman. in thelast minute or so that I have. he made a great pQint. The Department of Energy plays a role in regulating nuclear waste disposal and it needs to be considered as important even though it is not an independent agency that may or may not be exempted under this bill. But again since we had no public hearings. we do not know whether it is or not. I ask for a positive vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I include the following for the RECORD:
Date: 1995-01-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

If the gentlewoman will continue to yield. my concern is that we are throwing up more roadblocks to respond and not listing them. and we may just have a difference of opinion on this. but I think when we require the NRC to go through it or the Department Energy or even on the floor of this Congress to have a separate pointoforder vote against something. one Member can require it. and we are run by majority. as the gentleman well knows. But we could still slow up the responsiveness to a nuclear incident or nuclear accident.
Date: 1995-01-24
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. later in this session the House will consider the Personal Responsibility Act. Is it not time for the Speaker and all of us to take some personal responsibility for our own actions? When the flap came up over what the Speakers mother said to Connie C hung concerning the First Lady of our Nation. he turned the issue to Connie Chung and not what was said. When the issue came up on the $4.5 million book deal that was negotiated. the debate in the House was censored last week. And then over the weekend. our Speaker lashed out at the First Lady again and at a- former Speaker. He repeated the charge that made him famous when he called former Speaker Jim Wright a crook. Never mind the fact that the former Speakers book deal was worth $12.000 versus our current Speakers �$4.5 million deal. Even our most successful writer in this country does not command $4.5 million of upfront money. Or the fact that it was simply unprofessional. undignifid. and impugned the character of a former Speaker when he is retired and gone and cannot defend himself. Much has been written about our Speakers book deal. particularly the meeting with Mr. Murdoch and political apparatus. GOPAC. The Progress and Freedom Foundation. et cetera. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call has written in the Speakers eloquent words from 1988 about another book deal. an outside counsel on ethics should be brought in for a "complete and thorough" investigation. We have a saying in Texas. what goes around comes around. I ask today as Representative GINGRICH did in 1988 that the outside coun-
Date: 1995-01-24
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. . Mr. Chairman. I would like to make one clarification. This rapist that is the subject of this discussion is not the subject 9f a criminal prosecution at the point we are discussing. We are talking about someone who has already been prosecuted. already been adjudged guilty of the crime and who has moved to California. So all of this concern about this person being able to interject this bill into his defense in a criminal prosecution is really totally off the- point. This has nothing to do with the prosecution. The prosecution would have already happened. This person would have been found guilty. And we are merely talking about keeping track of him as he moves around the country posing a continuing threat to children around the country. So for those who have any concern at all that the bill as written without this amendment would somehow jeopardize the successful prosecution. really have been led down a path that is -not the subject of this bill. I oppose this amendment. and believe strongly that we will continue to be able to have this tracking system in place with the bill as written.
Date: 1995-01-25
Speaker: TOM DASCHLE (democrat)
Chamber: S

In a letter to the manager of the bill. the Senator from Idaho. Senator KEmPTHoRNE. from Carolyn Long Banks. president. and councilwomanatlarge. Atlanta. GA. on behalf of the National League of Cities. the first sentence of the second paragraph: We urge you to oppose amendments that would provide blanket exemptions of certain types of mandates from the pointsoforder contained in S. 1. Right on point with this amendment-"oppose amendments that would provide blanket exemptions of certain types of mandates." And this is from a city officeholder in Atlanta on behalf of the National League of Cities. not your basic. you know. Republican organization. Mr. President. I really think that we should defeat this amendment. all other similar amendments. Let Senators bring this thing to closure. Let Senators pass this bill tomorrow night and celebrate. having done the right thing for all Americans with this unfunded mandates legislation. I reserve the time.
Date: 1995-01-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. January 4. 1965. my first day in the Congress of. the United States as a Democratic Member from Texas. I introduced a balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker. few cared and less listened to. me at that time. Through the years. though. it has evolved into now that every freshman I run into asks me "Do you want to join my balanced budget amendment?" The fact is. Mr. Speaker. that I want to show my colleagues what we have done. In the 12 years in which I was chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. we reduced the budget by $65 billion. If every committee had done the same way. we would not be talking about balancing the budget today. I want to thank my colleague. the gentleman from Texas. CHARLIE STENHOLM. because the years when I was serving as chairman. my time was limited and he took over the job and has done an excellent job. Today will be the culmination of my original legislation and his work through the years.
Date: 1995-01-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as we begin the debate on welfare reform. let their be no mistake that the Democrats on the Committee on Agriculture welcome the opportunity to further reform the Food Stamp Program and the commodity distribution programs. Those of us who have worked with these programs labored long and hard to make needed changes. but are well aware that there are areas where they can be further improved. as with any other good program. They can be made more responsive to the needs of poor people by encouraging them to attain selfsufficiency. and they can be made more efficient for the States that administer them. This is not to say that we havent tried. We have. But our challenge now is to make sure that in making these reforms we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. These are complex. wellintentioned. and largely successful programs. The Federal nutrition programs have reduced hunger in this country dramatically and improved the nutritional quality of the diets of poor families. We should not lose sight of that fact by rushing to pass legislation that could threaten the good work of these programs.
Date: 1995-01-26
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey . one of the real leaders for fiscal responsibility.
Date: 1995-01-26
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today we will be voting on the balanced budget amendment. During the recent campaign and public statements defending the Contract With America. the Republicans have stated firmly they will not touch Social Security. But in committee hearings on the balanced budget amendment. the Republicans blocked all attempts to explicitly exempt Social Security from their balanced budget axe. Yesterday we passed a senseofCongress resolution that Social Security would not be touched because of the balanced budget amendment. But this resolution does not have the force of law. It was effective for one brief snapshot yesterday. It is not effective today. it is not effective tomorrow. and definitely not effective next year. This House does not have to obey it. Future Congresses do not have to obey it. Putting it in the Constitution would be the most effective way we can do it. A constitutional amendment to balance the budget does not exempt Social Security and puts into jeopardy that original contract with our seniors in 1935. We owe it to the American people to tell them where the $1.2 trillion in cuts will come from. We also owe it to our seniors to ensure that they know it is protected in the Constitution and that their benefits will not be cut on the crusade of the balanced budget. Mr. Speaker. I include the following for the RECORD: [From the Houston Chronicle. Jan. 11. 1995]
Date: 1995-01-26
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I say to the gentleman. "Congressman BENTSEN. you and I have talked. and we worked with Congresswoman JACKSONLEE today on putting together this information on the impact on Houston. One of the parts that I dont think a lot of people recognize is that in Houston. and I know the city council in Houston works on. We have a program called Covenant House that deals with teens. and they receive Federal. funding.-Its an alternative program for teenagers that we try to raise a lot of private sector funding for. and theres a small amount of Federal funds that go to it. about $11.000 a year. and this would also be cut by 20 percent by the adop-. tion of this amendment. that that 20 percent by the adoption of this amendment. that that 20 percent over the period of yearsso a program. for example. that a lot of people may donate to out of their private donations gets just a small amount of Federal spending. but it could be cut 20 percent. so we would have to make that up either in local tax money. or else through private donations." Again. private donations are hard to come by today.
Date: 1995-02-01
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I. too. rise in reluctant oppogition to the Moran amendment. But I want to take a moment to just note that the reason we are here today is because there has been a bipartisan effort under way for the last 3 or 4 years. And the gentleman from Virginia has been one of the real leaders in that effort. He did so much to build the foundation for the bill that we consider today. I supported his bill last year. I support the bill under consideration today. because it does carry it one step further. a very important step further. in my opinion. to make sure that we embed in our law the principle that if it is important enough to pass it. it is important enough to pay for it. But we would not be here today. we would not have this bill ready. as it is. for consideration on the floor if it had not been for the leadership that the gentleman from Virginia has shown on this issue. He has drawn on his experience in city government. He brought a wealth of understanding of this issue to the U.S. Congress. And he has contributed so much to the development of this legislation. to educating the Congress on the principles that underlie this legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for what he has done. Again. it is with great reluctance that I oppose this amendment. which by itself would have been a big step forward. In the last Congress it would have been as much as we could have gotten done. The bill we have in front of us now does carry it to the next step. I support the bill in front of us for that reason. Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from California . another person who has been such a leader in this bipartisan effort. worked with the gentleman from Virginia . worked with the gentleman from Ohio . the gentleman from Kansas . in bringing this legislation to the floor.