macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds only to say to the gentleman that just preceded me that the softdrink industry uses corn syrup and not only uses sugar. also to our colleague from South Carolina who stood here and said. your side of the aisle. your side of the aisle. this is not the 1minute Democrat bashing time. This is very serious business for jobs in the United States of America.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining onehalf minute. Mr. Chairman. I am not looking for headlines. I am not looking for a picture on the front page of the New York Times. I am speaking about people. real people in my district who will be out of work. people I know. people I have felt the flesh. and it is no secret that. yes. I have sugar cane in my district. But we are talking about jobs. jobs. jobs. U.S.A.. American jobs. Otherwise. without this legislation. we partition it out throughout -the world at lower prices. mind you. lower prices. but the world will benefit and American jobs will suffer. U.S.A.. American jobs. Mr. Chairman. the U.S. sugar program operates at no cost to the Federal Government. In fact. through the fee assessments on the domestic industry. sugar has contributed more than $130 million to the Federal Treasury since the last farm bill--and has contributed almost $500 million over the last 10 years through import duties. the fees. and interest on loans. The U.S. sweetener industry has a positive impact on the economy--more than $26 billion--generating 420.000 American jobs. My own district in the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is a good example of the contributions of the sugar industry. The value of the sugar cane harvest from the farms of the Lower Rio Grande Valley annually averages $40 million. In addition. the sugar cane industry generates $16 million annually for the valley economy in the form of payroll. local taxes paid. and purchases from local merchants and services. A sugar mill and a nearby refinery process cane and raw sugar from hundreds of farmers and generate hundreds of job locally. The average sugar cane farm in the Rio Grande Valley is just 311 acres. These are not large corporate farms. These are small farmers who in 1973 formed a cooperative and built a sugar mill in Harlingen to process their sugar cane. U.S. consumers get a good deal on sugar -at the supermarket Our consumers currently buy refined sugar for about 39 cents a pound. By companson. consumers in Tokyo pay almost 90 cents a pound while those in Europe pay from 50 to 70 cents. The average retail sugar price in developed countries last year was 54 cents38 percent more than the U.S. price. On these purchases alone. U.S. consumers save $1.4 billion compared with consumers in other developed countries. Clearly. U.S. consumers pay a fair price for sugar. Sugar is an essential link in our food chain. and we need to maintain a viable domestic sugar producing industry. providing our consumers with access to a stable supply at a reasonable price. The sugar provisions continue the no cost program. and actually increase by 25 percent the level of the fees. which will generate about $288 million for the Treasury through 2002. In addition. the bill removes limits on production. removes a guaranteed minimum price. effectively reduces the loan rate by 1 cent. and ensures an increase in foreign imports.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. My colleagues. this will be the last time that I participate in any debate on the farm bill and on the dairy programn. I have suffered with the dairy program all of my years on the Committee on Agriculture as chairman of the committee. but somehow in the final event. we come out with what is possible. Legislation is the art of the possible. not the extreme one side. not the extreme the other side. I have seen it al. as it rolled by the years that I have been here. In this case. I will support the gentleman from Wisconsin . because I think it falls more closely to what has been the model through the years. We look for the consumer. we look for the farmers. and it partly a sad occasion that I say this will be the last time that I participate in a debate of this kind on dairy. but I think that my final decision to support
Date: 1996-03-05
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today I introduce legislation requiring State lotteries to inform consumers of the statistical probability of winning the lottery prize as a part of all radio and television advertising. As a general principle. the Federal Government has been quite aggressive in requiring truth in advertising from those who use our Nations airwaves. However. it has neglected to act in one of the Nations fastest growing industries. that is. Staterun lotteries. In 1994. nationwide. consumers spent $34.4 billion on lottery tickets. In Texas alone we spent almost $3 billion. These billions were spent in spite of the fact that the chance of winning the lottery grand prize is less likely than getting struck by lightning. Mr. Speaker. there were 1.178 billion lottery tickets bought for the Lotto Texas grand prize last year. There were 74 grand prize winners. Statistically. the chance of winning the Lotto Texas grand prize is 1 in 15.890.700. Mr. Speaker. if a medical product offered one person in 15.890.700 a chance of growing hair on a bald head. the FDA would not approve it and the FTC would not allow it to be advertised on TV as a cure for baldness. Unfortunately. If a stock broker. price indexer. advertised an investment where 1 person gets rich and 15 million get nothing in TV ads showing only the person who got rich. the SEC would shut him down. The duty of a State to its people is higher than I would ask of private citizens or a business. If a State is going to be in the numbers business and use the Nations airwaves to market the chance of living the life style of the rich and famous. it has the duty to tell those people their chances of winning that life style. For most of our Nations history lotteries and other numbers games were illegal. They were illegal because they were deceptive and tricked people out of their hardearned money. Times have changed. and today lotteries are an accepted fact of life. We have a duty to ensure our Nations airwaves. we have a duty to ensure that the people get the facts. In Texas. every ad that brings the smiling face of our States newest millionaire in the living room should conclude with the tag line. "The chances of winning are 1 in 15.890.700."
Date: 1996-03-14
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is great to follow my colleague. the gentleman from Arizona. when he talks about ineffective government programs. Last week I had an opportunity to attend an honor society induction at Marshall Middle School in North Side Houston. Over 50 hardworking. very bright young Americans were inducted into the National Honor Society. and it was a moving ceremony. It illustrated the success of public education. Mr. Speaker. this school and its feeder elementary schools stand to lose teachers. face larger school classes. and would be denied extra help in reading and writing if the majority Republicans continue to insist on their extreme education cuts. Even though the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to restore vital funding in education and job training. the House Republicans are still wedded to their bill that makes serious cutbacks in education. Mr. Speaker. let me point out that chart that is a layoff notice to the teachers and local school students. Schools are now making their budgets for next year. That layoff notice will say. "I regret to inform you because of massive Federal budget cuts we are going to cut education funding in your district." so teachers will be laid off and class size will be higher. Mr. Speaker. let us stop these extreme budget cuts.
Date: 1996-03-19
Speaker: ROBERT G. SZABO (democrat)
Chamber: S

The National Wetlands Coalition. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. SZABO: We read with concern your January 22. 1996. letter to President Clinton regarding his veto of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) appropriations bill. in part. because the bill would have eliminated EPAs authority under Clean Water Section 404(c). As the Presidents veto message stated. this provision would preclude EPA "from exercising its authority under the Clean Water Act to prevent wetlands losses." As the national program managers of the agencies charged with the administration of Clean Water Act Section 404. we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your letter on behalf of the Clinton Administration. We want to emphasize unequivocally that Section 404(c) provides an essential link between our agencies in the implementation of the Section 404 program and contributes significantly to our capacity to ensure effective protection for the nations human health and environment. The decision of Congress in 1972 to establish joint administration of Section 404 explicitly recognized the advantages of integrating the Corps of Engineers historical role in protecting the navigational integrity of the nations waters with EPAs responsibilities for achieving the broader environmental goals of the Clean Water Act. The value and logic in this decision remains valid todayand we. therefore. cannot agree with the conclusion in your letter that EPAs authority under Section 404(c) is not justified. We strongly agree that implementation of Section 404(c). like the Section 404 program itself. requires a balance to ensure protection of the nations waters while effectively guarding the property rights of private landowners. The Presidents Wetlands Plan. developed in 1993. reflects this commitment to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible. Many of the constructive improvements identified in the Presidents Wetlands Plan have been implemented. and tangible benefits of these actions are being realized. Moreover. information collected as part of a recent Corps of Engineers survey of their field offices demonstrates that EPAs Section 404(c) authority is not being used in a threatening way. but constructively and with considerable discretion. Repeal of EPAs Section 404(c) authority is unnecessary to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible but would invariably erode its ability to protect human health and the environment. We cannot support this result. The organizations which. with you. signed the letter to the President represent an important cross section of the nation. and we appreciate your vital interest in this issue. Our challenge is to identify improvements to the Section 404 program that address legitimate concerns without weakening Its environmental protections. We look forward to working with you as we meet that challenge. Sincerely.
Date: 1996-03-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. yesterday 27 House Republicans sent a letter to Chairman LivINGSTON asking that the House include additional funds for education. I want to commend our Republican colleagues who believe. as I do. that these massive cuts in education will affect the future of our children. Education is not a waste. It is not pork. And our young people are not expendable resources. On the contrary. education is the key to our childrens future and the key to our countrys future success. Cutting our commitment to education is the equivalent of declaring war on ourselves. One need only look at our world competitors and see who is lengthening the school year. raising their standards and improving the product of their school system and adding money to education funding rather then cutting it. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider what we are doing in our education system. both in terms of funding and also the message we are sending to our Nations children. We hear so much about providing a better future for our children and grandchildren. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.
Date: 1996-03-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the Republican majoritys assault on public education continues. A few days ago. Republican members of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee charged that the Federal Government administers 760 education programs. and yet. test scores In math. reading. and science continue to fall. This outrageous statement is typical of the Republican attack on public education and needs to be corrected. Most of the programs listed have absolutely noting to do with student achievement. The Republican definition of "education programs" include: FBI advanced police training. disaster assistance. radiation control. and coal miners respiratory impairment treatment. The FBI advance police training program was never intended to raise math. reading. and science test scores of our school children. Instead of offering constructive solutions. the House Republicans have proposed the largest cuts in education funding in our Nations history. If Republicans are serious about securing a better future for our children. then they need to reevaluate their efforts to deny title I assistance. to eliminate Goals 2000. and to slash funding for safe and drugfree schools.. Its time to end the hypocrisy and put our money where our mouth is in education.
Date: 1996-03-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague. the gentleman from Texas. for yielding time to me.. Mr. Chairman. the concern I have about this amendment is the way it is drawn and the actual application when it is out in the schools. This amendment. I think. could create a violation of the Constitution. specifically the 5th and 14th amendments. and the equal protection. I think it sets up a good equal protection argument. that it gives the States the ability to decide. whether it is in Texas or California. New Mexico or Arizona. It think we would see that come back to the Supreme Court. and they would probably rule the same way they did on an earlier Texas case. The amendment would give the power of Congress to the States to decide whether they could deny that education to the children of illegals. Mr. Chairman. the other concern I have is the procedure in the amendment. Again. I am trying to bring what we do on the floor down into what is going to happen into the Houston Independent School District. or the Alvin District. or any of the districts in the country. A child may be a citizen. but their parents may be illegal. What is the procedure in this amendment to the affidavit that is going to be signed? Are the parents going to sign? That that child is entitled to an education because that child is a citizen. even though the parents may not be here legally. I think there are so many questions about this amendment that cause us concern. It would place an enormous burden on our educational system. Mr. Chairman. we want teachers to be teaching. We want to take away some of the paperwork that is being required. not just by Federal law. but by State and local rules. and we want teachers to be teaching. What this amendment sets up is that our teachers would be doing more administrative work than they should be. We want them to be teaching those children. because those are the problems we have with public education. The education is done in the classroom. and that is where it should be. We do not punish our small children by taking away their ability to get education. Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
Date: 1996-03-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. under ordinary circumstances. I would be interested in supporting an amendment of this nature. but the way that we have handled this bill throughout the day. I must oppose it. One cannot say to people. you cannot bring. your mother. you cannot bring your father. you have to speak English. you cannot come. we do not want you. get the dickens out of this country. but if you come to work temporarily when we can withhold 25 percent of your wages. when we can tell you if you have insurance for your car and not have insurance for your car. then you can come and work. I can get all the workers we want in my congressional district. and they are good hard workers. But in the spirit in which we are dealing here today. to me it is insulting. it is demeaning. These will be indentured servants in the United States of America. indentured to individuals who will withhold under law 25 percent of their pay. maybe or maybe not get housing or be charged for housing or forced to buy it at the ranch store or the company store. It is bad as it is. but I cannot accept all of the other things that are coming through. We are almost to the point where I am tempted to offer an amendment that anyone who is a descendant of a foreigner has to go back to the country of origin. That is about what we are up to. We even might want to change my name from GARZA to CRANE. It has gotten to the point where it is now ridiculous. If we have problems with population. we work on the numbers. work on the numbers legitimately. I do not have any objection if we are overpopulated. But let me say to my California friends. if not one more alien comes to California. by 2012 California is more than 50 percent Asian and Hispanic. So. listen to that. 12. 15 more years. more than 50 percent. no matter what else is done. So I would think that we would be interested in seeing what we can do legally. Mr. Chairman. if my colleagues are interested in numbers. I am with them. We have to work on that. But saying they are going to be terrorists. they are going to come blow the countryside apart. they are going to come and destroy the Government. they are only talking about Mexico and Central America. and they have to admit that. They have to admit that. Anyone that does not look like. I do not know. the gentleman from California and I look alike. But maybe like the gentleman from California then his is OK. If he looks like Mr. POMBO and me. he is not OK. throw him out. send him back. I cannot support this under this. the way that we are handling it.
Date: 1996-03-21
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Speaker. in the United States the history of women in public service is both significant and meaningful. Unfortunately. our history does not always adequately recognize these womens contributions. Historically. women have received limited space in the history books. and few have questioned their absence. However. today we are all faced with the challenge to eliminate the negative stereotypes. myths. lies. and distortions about womens role in the progress of time. In celebration of Womens History Month. I would like to recognize DeMetris Sampson as the Woman of the Year from the 30th Congressional District of Texas. Ms. Sampsons activities are multifaceted. For the past 11/ years. she has chaired the task force on liquor related businesses near schools. As chairwoman. she has successfully formulated and lobbied for State law changes as well as local ordinance and administrative changes to address the proliferation of alcohol establishments located near Dallas schools. In addition. Ms. Sampson has served for the past 9 years on the domestic violence task force for the city of Dallas. She has been instrumental in formulating changes in the law for the citys legislative package which is designed to protect battered spouses from repeat offenders. The task force has also worked to focus the attention of the municipal. family. and criminal judiciary on domestic violence issues and reforms. In 1991. Ms. Sampson was appointed to the East Texas State University board of regents by Gov. Ann Richards. Currently. she serves as the vice chairperson of the board. H2662 In recognition of her work in the city of Dallas. Ms. Sampson was recently named the recipient of the Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Justice Award. She is a successful practicing attorney and prominent community activist. and it is an honor to recognize DeMetris Sampson as the Woman of the Year. Through her tireless work and dedication Ms. Sampson is truly one of this Nations greatest public servants.
Date: 1996-03-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the Republican cuts in education are not necessary to balance the budget. Todays newspapers across our country report that the Nations deficit this year is $145.6 billion. down from $163.5 billion last year. and half the 1$292 billion of 4 years ago under a Republican administration. We have made great strides in reducing the deficit without the outrageous cuts in education. But the Republicans continue to insist on attacking public education and continue to govern piecemeal. The uncertainty about Federal funding has caused chaos in our local schools as they wait for final word on future funding for levels of elementary and secondary education programs. Today as we continue on the GOPs road. school districts across our Nation may be forced to lay off 40.000 teachers because of the funding uncertainty. and increase class sizes and cause an additional decline in the quality of education. The American people want our children to be educated. but the Republicans refuse to give up on their extreme course of deep cuts education fuziding. The American people want a balanced budget without these education cuts.
Date: 1996-03-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. on March 13. I was unavoidably detained from the House floor and missed four RECORD votes. Had I been present. I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 56. "no". rollcall 57. "yes". rollcall 58. "yes". and rollcall 59. I would have voted "no."
Date: 1996-03-22
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to oppose the repeal of the ban on assault weapons. It is my wish that a police officer never has to confront a suspect armed with a firearm fitted with a grenade launcher. which is outlawed as part of the ban. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate purpose in private ownership of a grenade launcher. The weapons identified in the ban are not uncommon on the streets of Dallas. The Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms estimates that there are two million militarystyle assault weapons on the streets today. Dallas narcotics officers have often encountered Intratec9 firearms when executing a raid or apprehending a suspect. These firearms. with clips containing 32 rounds. have been the gun of choice for drug dealers. The Dallas Police Department has seized 24 Intratec9s. 66 AK47s and 3 street sweeper shotguns during 1995. These firearms are explicitly named in the ban. Mr. Speaker. more than threefourths of the American public support this ban. Adding provisions to this bill that increases penalties for gun related crimes is simply a gimmick to divert attention from this legislative payoff to the NRA. and will do nothing to stop those crimes if assault weapons are legally available again on the streets. Current law bans only a short list of specified semiautomatic assault weaponsweapons used almost exclusively by organized crime. gangs. and drug cartelswhile specifically exempting more than 650 sporting firearms from the ban. Statistics show that even though these assault weapons make up less than 1 percent of all guns. they are 18 times more likely than other guns to be copkillers. and 16 times more likely to be traced to crime than other firearms. Police support outlawing assault weapons in order to protect the lives of police. as well as the general public. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to uphold the ban.