macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1994-08-09
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the ClintonGephardt or ClintonMitchell health care plans are full of myths. One of those myths is that America can afford nationalized health care. That is just not true. The ClintonMitchell bill contains 17 new taxes to be felt by the middle class. mostly. The ClintonGephardt bill contains an increase in the tobacco tax. a tax on insurane premiums. a tax for employera whose employees are coveredsomewhere else. such as by a spouse. and a new tax revenue by extending Medicare to more people. Mr. Speaker. the ClintonGephardt health plan costs America $226.7 billion in new taxes. and only makes deficit reductions o $17 billion. They have to use the money from these taxes to fund their increased funding and expanded entitlements. Mr. Speaker. Americans do not want. do not need. and do not deserve to be overtaxed so Congress can spend more. Unlike Congress. the American people know the difference between myth and reality.
Date: 1994-08-10
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is no myth that the ClintonGephardt and ClintonMitchell plans do create huge new bureaucracies. It is no myth that these same plans both contain massive amounts of taxes and spending that America just cannot afford. Now. how about myth No. 3? They claim thereare no employer mandates. Guess again. The ClintonMitchell bill acts as a big brother and comes in to impose mandates to reach universal coverage if it has not already happened by the year 2000. And in the ClintonGephardt bill those same mandates are forced on large employers in 1996 and smaller employerS by 1998. It looks a duck. walks like a duck. quacks like a duck. this one even talks like a duck. it is a duck. If the Government is forcing business to cover employees. that is a mandate. and Americans do not want mandates. Americans do know the difference between myth and reality.
Date: 1994-08-12
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the ClintonGephardt and ClintonMitchell plans are all about the Government controlling our health care. Today. I would like to highlight some of the price controls they impose. The ClintonMitchell hill which costs $1 trillion taxes your health insurance plans whose premiums grow at rates faster than the Government prescribes. The ClintonGephardt plan creates a national cost containment commission to impose regulations to keep costs down. Price controls never have worked and they will not. work nowWhat this really means is Americans will be taxed and give up some of the services you need. This- is the Clinton plan for total Government control.-But. America will not be fooled. they know the difference between myth and reality.
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. pursuant to an agreement with the gentleman from South Carolina and the gentleman from South Carolina . I ask unanimous consent that my amendment in the nature of a substitute number 1 made in order under the rule be modified to state that which is at the desk now and be considered in lieu of the amendment printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute. as modified. be considered as read and. printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield. certainly. Mr. Chairman. in filing the amendment. the wrong copy was inadvertently given to the Committee on Rules and the modification would simply delete subsection ii. It is the provision that requires a threefifths vote.
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from New York . Mr. Chairman. I rise today to ask Members to cast a tough vote. A vote that will put accountability. respectability. and responsibility back Into Congress. For too long we have routinely voted to add billions of dollars to the $4.5 trillion public debt. We must stop the upward debt spiral. That is why I am asking Members to vote to put emergency spending on budget. For some Members this will be a tough vote. Although tough. it Is necessary because this vote is directly tied to the future of this country. Members should realize that this is the only chance to vote for real reform because we all know that after November the momentum to drastically change how we address emergency supplementals will disappear. While I agree with Mr. KASICH and
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. as my colleagues know. I wouldhope that we could cut spending in other areas as much as we have already cut defense.
Date: 1994-08-17
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. as I was saying. I believe that we have already taken too much money out of the defense budget. and it is terrible to me that we even talk about thinking about it. However it is important that we consider paying for our finances as we go along. We go. to realize there are two emergencies facing this country. those that are caused by circumstances out of control and one the body has created itself. and that is the $4.5 trillion national debt. We do not have the power to stop unforeseen emergencies. and so we can only offer help to those in need. -But we in Congress have the power to reduce our national debt. and so far we have ignored the task. Members have said the deficit is going down. but that is short term. We need to focus our sights on the long term. and by the Presidents own predictions the deficit and debt will rise in the outyears. Mr. Chairman. over the past 4 years $90 billion has been added to the debt through emergency supplementals. The Presidents proposed spending. $320 billion for new programs and figures. show that by 1998 $1.5 trillion will be added to the debt. This is not how a responsible Congress acts. We have got to reduce our expenditures. and change our spending habits. and show the American people that we are accountable for our actions and care about the future of this country. That is why Members ought to vote yes on this amendment and start us down the road toward fiscal responsibility. In answer to some of the questions today. todays rules already preclude any point of order on spending over 602(b) limits. so. when we waive all points of order. which Rules does on every supplemental and report. conference report. then there is not any way for spending to be addressed except by the Johnson amendment. Vote for the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1994-08-18
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. as my colleagues know. onesection of the Presidents socalled anticrime bill that he frequently tries to gain support with is that there are going to be 100.000 new cops on the street. It is just another myth. However. the National Center for Policy Analysis discovered the numbers do not quite add up to 100.000. According to a Princeton University criminologist. Mr. Speaker. it takes 10 police officers to keep 1 fulltime officer on the street. Therefore the bill would actually fund only about 2.000 roundtheclock cops. Based on 200 jurisdictions. this would increase actual street strength by only 10 police per city. In reality this bill would fund more social workers than police officers. Mr. Speaker. the vote last week spoke loud and clear. The pork in this bill is a crime. and Americans do not want. do not need. and do not deserve more pork. America wants a real anticrime bill.
Date: 1994-09-30
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to do a colloquy with the gentleman. It was said on the conference committee that Mr. HELMS supported the Kassebaum language. and he has told me. and I have a letter from him. that he does not. absolutely burden of proof under that language to ever reach the point where you would protect prayer in the school. because you have to go to court twice.
Date: 1994-09-30
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we have discussed this and discussed this. and I cannot believe that we have voted 3 times on it and the last vote being 369 to 55. that we have conferees who cannot carry out the will of the House. Here is a list of all of them. including some of our leaders who have been talking against it. This is no protection for prayer in school. In fact. it provides hurdles. The Christian Coalition says the language currently in the report replaces such hurdles on aggrieved. individuals whose constitutional rights to school prayer have been violated. For all intents and purposes it is meaningless. It means that someone has to take a case to court twice in order to protect the privilege of the voluntary right to pray in school. I want to reiterate our First Amendment to the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We are prohibiting it really by the language in the bill today my making them go to court. I would also like to share a letter that I got yesterday from an 11yearold girl in my district. Erin Small. She said. "A topic that Ive always had on my mind was that topic of prayer In schools. It has always -bothered me that on our dollar bills and coins it says In God we trust but in our schools we are not allowed to pray." There are many organizations that support the House language as did the House. the Christian Coalition. American Family Association Foundation. Concerned Women of America. Eagle Forum. Family Research Council. Traditional Values Coalition. just to name a few. The real issues here. what are they? Fear. real or. imagined. that a strong. moral influence may once again be legally aqceptable during our school childrens days requiring open and honest discourse between people of differing backgrounds. I believe that we in America need to protect prayer in school. I ask Members to support the motion to recommit. I
Date: 1994-09-30
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I object on the ground a quorum is not present and make the point- of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 1994-10-06
Speaker: MIKE OXLEY (republican)
Chamber: H

for their work on this legislation. We in California are particularly conscious of the benefits of highspeed rail as part of our overall transportation strategy. It is energy efficient. environmentally benign. and it helps alleviate traffic congestion and meet our Clean Air Act air quality standards. We know that the Nations freight railroads will be key players in the ultimate operation of highspeed rail passenger service. because they own most of the rightsofway which will have to be used for highspeed corridors. In California. we have so far been successful in obtaining the cooperation of the -freight carriers in making rightsof-" way available for our conventional passenger and commuter service. As we move on to highspeed rail. it is quite clear that suitable liability arrangements will have to be made to assure access to needed facilities. I believe that this is an area where the Department of Transportation can perform a. vital service in its planning -processesboth under current law and under this legislation DOT can help to suggest approaches to addressing the liability problem as part of the planning and other preconstruction preparations provided for in this bill. 7I also want to -highlight the importance of the rail safety provisions in this amended version of the bill. corresponding to. LR. 4545. the rail safety reauthorization approved by the House in August. The amendment is in effect a commondenominator of House and Senate provisions to reauthorize and improve the rail safety programs of the Federal Railroad Administration. As with the highspeed rail legislation. the rail safety provisions have been crafted on a bipartisan basis with outstanding cooperation among the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I .also want to commend the leadership of the Public Works Committee on both sides of the aisle for their assistance and cooperation with respect to the safety provisions in title IH that involve the jurisdiction of that committee. Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Washington [Mr. SlwFr] for his work on thisbill and for his number of years of service to the House. This is one of his last bills. and he has really contributed a lot to each of us.
Date: 1994-10-07
Speaker: BOB STUMP (republican)
Chamber: S

as well as the other members of the House committee. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Charlie Armstrong of the Senate Legislative Counsels office and to Bob Cover of the House Legislative Counsels office for the painstaking care and skill they devoted to the drafting of this legislation. .Thank you. Mr. President. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the explanatory statement on this compromise agreement prepared by the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs be printed in the RECORD at this time.
Date: 1994-10-07
Speaker: AN MOLINARI (republican)
Chamber: H

and our full committee chairman NORM MINETA and its ranking member BUD SHUSTER for all of their hard work on this bill. I would alamo -like to thank members of the Banking Committee. particularly full committee chairman GONZALEZ and ranking member LEACH and Banking Subcommittee chairman KANJORSKI and ranking member RIDGE for their efforts on this bill. Moreover. I want to thank Environment and Public Works chairman BAUCUS and ranking member CHAFER for their ongoing efforts to reauthorize EDA. Finally. I want to thank Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown for his leadership on these issues and his articulation of EDAs role in the administrations efforts to help our distressed communities. The Economic Development Administration has embarked on a new beginning. Last May. the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2442. a bill which closely reflects the bill we take up today. During debate of H.R. 2442 on the House floor. I asked "Who. are you going to call"-when you need to put a water system into an industrial park. when the Defense Department decides that it must close your communitys No. 1 employer. its military base. or when your community is hit by a devastating flood. earthquake. or hurricane? Three hundred and twentyeight Members of the House. from both sides of the aisle. said they were going to call the Economic Development Administration and with that vote we overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2442. the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994. H.R. 5243 authorizes the Economic Development Administration for a period of 3 years through fiscal year 1997. Several of the provisions contained in the bill address past criticisms of EDA. Gone are the inefficient bureaucracies. gone are the archaic eligibility requirements. and gone are the timeconsuming and cumbersome approval processes. However. the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 1994 does ndt only improve EDAs existing programs it builds upon them. H.R. 524 3 includes programs which will help communities meet the economic development challenges of the 1990s. For instance. H.R. 5243 includes a competitive communities pilot program which will encourage local communities. private businesses. labor organizations. and the Federal Government to forge partnerships to help distressed communities build the necessary competitive industrial base to meet todays economic challenges. With EDAs assistance. highgrowth businesses will become the anchors of our distressed communities. Using this additional tool. together with EDAs public works. defense conversion. and technical assistance programs. these communities will be able to encourage business startups of highgrowth companies. enable existing businesses and industries to flourish. create jobs. and compete on a global scale. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I urge adoption of H.R. 5243.
Date: 1997-01-07
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. due to delayed airline flights. I missed a vote held earlier today to elect the Speaker of the House. Had I been present. I certainly would have voted for the gentleman from Georgia
Date: 1997-02-04
Speaker: SAMUEL BRODER (republican)
Chamber: S

Director. National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health Building. Bethesda. MD. DEAR DR. BRODER: Three weeks ago I wrote to you about the National Cancer Institutes (NCI) positioi on mammography screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49. I continue to believe that this issue merits your immediate attention. As I have stated previously. women and physicians have come to depend on the recommendations of the NCI in determining when they should begin mammography screening. NCIs decision to back away from screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49 has led to confusion and anxiety. NCIs position on this issue is especially distressing in light of the conclusions found in a recent report prepared by the House Government Operations Committee titled "Misused Science: The National Cancer Institutes Elimination of Mammography Guidelines for Women in Their Forties." This report notes that several senior scientists at NCI questioned the scope and quality of studies used by NCI to reverse its position on mammography and that NCI ignored the 14 to 1 decision by its own National Cancer Advisory Board "to defer" action on any changes to the mammography guidelines. The latter point was one which I had brought to your attention In July. Two new research studies presented at the annual conference of the Radiological Society of North America last month now strongly support mammography screening for women under age 50. 1 outliVed these studies and their findings in my letter to you It is time for the NCI to reconsider its position on mammography screening for younger women. I would like to meet with you personally to discuss what actions the NCI can take on this matter. Please contact me as soon as possible to arrange for an appointment. Sincerely.
Date: 1997-02-04
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciated FRANK. I tell my colleagues. FRANK TEJEDA and I had a chance to serve in the Texas House together. He was in the House when I was first elected down there. and later elected to the Senate. and I was there with him for the whole 7 years I was in the House. I got to know him. because down there we are not partisan like we are up here. We were bipartisan. We ate and drank together and we made laws together and we got to know each other. And I got to know FRANK. I even served on committees with him. When he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. he did not have any opposition. Since that time he has been having to fly through Dallas to get up here. which is where I am from. and I have flown back and forth with him many times. And I want to tell my colleagues that he read the Bible on the airplane. memorized verses. and said that he was going to do what was right for America and what was right in the eyes of the Lord. FRANK TEJEDA was a marine. and because of that he gave great faith in the strength of our armed services. which I believe in as well. and he and I were on common ground there. The strength of this Nation lies in our strength. in our military strength to form our foreign policy around the world. FRANK did that with a vehemence no one else could do. He was a great marine. To FRANK. I say. and I think the marines would say. semper fi. Adios amigo.
Date: 1997-02-12
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. Thomas Jefferson. who is quoted an awful lot today in describing his devotion to the will of the people. was fond of saying the voice of the people is the voice of God. Except. in the late 1770s and early 1780s. he was more eloquent and more romantic. he said: "Vox Populi. Vox Dei." In Colorado the people have spoken clearly. In fact they spoke first and forcefully on the matter of term limits. Their proposal is before us now. embodied in the amendment that the gentleman from Colorado and I were instructed. by those same people. at the polls. to offer for your consideration today. Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues support for this proposal. and in doing so ask that they consider one more factor that has yet to be featured in todays debate. By this vote. we impose nothing. no term limits. we impose nothing. Instead. we are considering whether to refer a measure back to our State legislatures for their consideration in 50 States. other elected officials who are perhaps more skilled than we are to define their relationship in their State with the Federal Government. More than any other configuration. three terms in the House. two terms in the Senate. has been suggested by the States. That is something I think we ought to take firm note of here today. that. yes. it is correct. those who have said that there has been no clear mandate as to what the proper period of time ought to be more than any other configuration. three terms in the House. two terms in the Senate has been suggested by more States. It is entirely appropriate for us to adopt this amendment. turn the question back over to the States. as we ought to and have been requested to do. and allow the States to decide what our terms ought to be here. Three terms in the House. two terms in the Senate is sufficient time to get the work done here in the U.S. Congress.
Date: 1997-02-13
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I am strongly opposed to the Presidents resolution to make millions of taxpayer dollars available for international organizations to promote abortion. in spite of what they are saying. Frankly. I am disappointed that we are taking the vote on the resolution because of a lastminute compromise in the omnibus appropriations bill. Do you know what. it was a last minute sellout at the expense of the values of the American people. But I am further outraged that the Clinton administration has been doing everything in its power to make sure that the American taxpayer dollars are made available on the international arena for abortions. There are no monetary differences in these two measures. Both bills release funds earlier than previous. The difference is that one prohibits funding to organizations that perform or promote abortions. The other does not. The funds are supposed to be spent on international family planning. I cannot believe that anyone in the administration or any Member of this House. for that matter. would list abortion as a method of family planning. We should know that in 1996 the White House administration rejected a compromise which would have provided even more money for international family planning. Why did they reject it? Because it included prolife language. I urge this body to stand firm against the funding of abortions overseas and to vote no on this resolution.
Date: 1997-02-28
Speaker: CRAIG THOMAS (republican)
Chamber: S

for his consideration in allowing me to go ahead of him. He has been patiently waiting in the Chamber to be recognized. but he has generously acceded to my request that I be permitted to proceed in that I have an important appointment to meet. I will be very brief.