macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2000-09-27
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. prescription drug coverage for Americas seniors is important. Our two parties differ. however. Republicans believe in choice. not government control. Americans themselves can always make decisions that best meet their individuals needs. On the other hand. Democrats believe government. not individuals. make the best decisions for all people in every circumstance. The ClintonGore administrations prescription drug proposals are total government control. Vice President GORE claims to have a recipe of hopes and promises. But when we get in the kitchen. we discover it is the same old concoction of government ingredients and bureaucratic spices. One can present it any way one wants to. but one knows it still tastes the same. it still smells the same. It is not good. We need a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that offers seniors real choices without government. control. Americans do not want. need. or deserve any more Hillary care.
Date: 2000-10-03
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. let us look at the facts. Republicans have locked away 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare surplus. Republicans have eliminated over $350 billion of our Nations debt and will totally eliminate it by 2012. We asked the Vice President to join us in dedicating another 90 percent or $240 billion of next years surplus toward eliminating the debt. Unfortunately. the Vice President does not agree. You see he wants to spend over $1 trillion on increasing the size of our government. Most Americans would agree the Vice Presidents plan to spend 1 trillion more dollars is shortsighted. We do not need a bigger government. Americans do not want. do not need and do not deserve a big government spending spree. They deserve a secure retirement and a debtfree America.
Date: 2000-10-04
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it has been 22 days ago since Republicans asked the President and Vice President to join us in dedicating 90 percent of next years surplus to eliminating the national debt. Even last night. the Vice President said he wanted to reduce the debt. But as of this morning. we have not heard a word from either one of them. I am curious. what are they waiting for? Could it be because the Vice President has proposed over $1 trillion in new government spending? I think it is. It seems the Vice President cares more about spending the surplus than saving it. Why else has he been silent on joining our efforts to eliminate the debt? This Democrat administration spending spree will jeopardize the health of Social Security and Medicare. and that is just wrong. I tell the Vice President. come on. together let us eliminate the national debt. Social Security and Medicare depend on it.
Date: 2000-10-05
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. guess who made this claim: I have been a part of the discussions on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the day it was first established. That boast was made a few days ago by AL GORE. who was not even elected to Congress until 2 years after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established. He took credit for it. but he was not even in Congress when it happened. Two days ago in the Presidential debates. GORE claimed that he was at a Florida high school when a student had to stand in class because the classroom was so overcrowded. The principal of that school laughed when he heard the claim and said. "We have never allowed a student to stand in the back of a classroom or to stand in a classroom." He also added that the classroom in question. a science lab. has about $150.000 this year alone in new equipment. Why does he have to keep making these things up? What drives him to take credit for so many things that he clearly had nothing to do with? Mr. GORE has a problem with the truth. We need leadership that knows the difference between selfserving fantasy and reality. Our country is hungry for integrity.
Date: 2000-10-11
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. it is Nobel Peace Prize time again. and I rise today to congratulate another Dallas resident. Jack St. Clair Kilby. Mr. Kilby was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. While you might not know him personally. his invention revolutionized the world. Shortly after joining Texas Instruments way back in 1958. Mr. Kilby conceived and built the first electronic circuit. microcircuit. Without question. his development revolutionized the electronics industry. gave us such things as the cell phone and. satellite communications. His invention allowed us to explore space. fly to the Moon. and develop sophisticated medical tools. Mr. Speaker. I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Kilby for his Nobel Prize award. He helped make America great.
Date: 2000-10-12
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: S
State: Texas

Mr. President. I am pleased that. with my support. the Senate took another step today toward fulfilling our countrys commitment to provide health care for our veterans. The fiscal year 2001 VAHUD Appropriations Conference Report that passed the Senate this afternoon contains a $1.4 billion increase in veterans health care funding from the last years appropriations level. While I am pleased that we have finally come around to talking about additional funding for veterans health care. as opposed to three years of flatline budget levels. I am disappointed that the funding level in the FY2001 VAHUD Appropriations Conference Report falls short of the level proposed by veterans organizations. The authoritative Independent Budget is produced by major veterans organizations including AMVETS. the Disabled American Veterans. the Paralyzed Veterans of America. and the VFW. The Independent Budget and The American Legion agree that the Veterans Administration will need at least $500 million more in funding than provided by this conference report. I am pleased to have led the effort last year in the Senate to increase veterans health care funding. Through my efforts on the Senate Budget Committee and on the Senate floor. we were able to start reversing the negative effects of three years of flatlined veterans health care budgets with an increase of $1.7 billion. I am pleased that my efforts appear to have convinced the Administration and Members of Congress to start talking about increases in veterans health care funding instead of keeping this budget stagnant. This year. I was successful in getting a bipartisan amendment passed to the Senate Budget Resolution that added an additional $1.9 billion to last years funding for veterans health care. The conference report that passed the Senate today fell $500 million short of this goal and will prevent the VA from adequately funding a number of important programs including medical care. research. long term care. and necessary facility construction and renovation. While the $1.4 billion increase in this years VA budget and the $1.7 billion increase from last year are important improvements. Im afraid the funds are simply providing budgetary backfill for the years when the veterans health care needs were ignored. We need a VA veterans health care budget that can adequately offset years of underfunding. the higher costs of medical care caused by consumer inflation. wage increases. and legislation passed by Congress. For the first time in a number of years. were working with overall budget surpluses instead of budget deficits. Clearly. the funds are there to provide for veterans health care. It is simply a question of whether the political will is there to make veterans health care a priority instead of an afterthought. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee. I will continue to do all I can to encourage my colleagues to approve adequate funding levels for veterans health care. I look forward to continue working on a bipartisan basis with my Senate colleagues as well as with representatives of the veterans community in South Dakota.
Date: 2000-10-24
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I rise because I am concerned that we left an important provision out of S. 1452. The provision that has been omitted from S. 1452 is Section 102 of H.R. 1776. which requires the Federal government to perform a "housing impact analysis" before it issues new regulations. My district has shortage of affordable housing. and housing prices are only increasing to the point where less and less people can afford a home. Supply is not keeping up with demand. and as a result. many of the people in my district and throughout the nation suffer. This problem hits my lower income constituents the hardest. That is why I supported creating a "housing impact analysis." which would determine if a significant negative impact on affordable housing would result from new government regulations. The purpose of the "housing impact analysis" would be to alert local and federal decision makers to how federal regulations would impact the affordability of housing. I strongly believe that an analysis on the cost of regulation would be a critical tool to help control the rising cost of housing in my district. and throughout the country. I know affordable housing is a key issue for many of my colleagues. I.anticipate working on the concept of a "housing impact analysis" as we look forward to the 107th Congress.
Date: 2000-10-25
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. imagine an America where all children receive a world class education and an opportunity to achieve their dreams in a safe school in every community. Imagine an America where the best and brightest teach Americas children and every child can read by the third grade. Imagine an America where 95 percent of students graduate from high school and every high school graduate has access to a college education. Mr. Speaker. House Republicans are committed to this vision for our children and making these dreams a reality. Children are Americas top priority. Republicans are open to innovation and new solutions to old problems. Republicans have made a solid commitment to education. but the ClintonGore administration and Democrats in Congress want the Federal Government to decide what local schools can and cannot do. This is what separates the two parties on education policy. Wake up America. Every child. regardless of family income. deserves a quality education. We need to increase the role of parents in the daytoday education of their children and decrease the role of Washington. Republicans are committed to securing Aimnericas future for our children and grandchildren.
Date: 2000-11-01
Speaker: GARY MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. To the gentleman from California. Speaker. this is an interesting debate the chairman of the committee that today. The gentleman from Georgia. a made the speech a moment ago. there good friend of mine. stood up and asked is a willingness on this side to reopen a simple question: Was the President of that particular part of the tax bill and the United States in the meeting. and do a little better job for our hospitals. he was attacked when he left the po- our rural hospitals. our nursing homes. dium. because that is an unreasonable and others. There is some additional question to ask. Then the gentleman knowledge in this House. other than from California. good friend of mine. the chairman of the committee. the comes before this honorable body and same man that wrote the BBA fix in puts a quote before us about what the the first place in 1997. that had to be President of the United States said. convinced to do more at that time. and and he was attacked. I would never I see the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. stand on this floor and accuse the NUSSLE) on the floor who has been a President of the United States of being tremendous leader in the Rural Health a liar. Yet. members of his own party Care Coalition. We know this. We can did that. because they said he did not have a better agreement. and that is mean what he said. Obviously. we one that we must get done. or we will would never impugn what the Presi- not finish by the election. or by Janudent said in that fashion. ary 1. unless we can do more. Then. the Republican leadership was So in the spirit of bipartisanship. attacked because they are running this there is a large number of Democrats. House. Well. let me read to my col- in fact. there are 137 on my side of the leagues from the Hill newspaper. what aisle that said we should not spend $645 the Hill newspaper says today: "De- billion this year. we should only spend spite President Clintons pledge to stay $633 billion.
Date: 1983-02-01
Speaker: CHRISTINE NAYLOR (republican)
Chamber: S

Care of Senator Paul Tsongas. Russell Senate Office Building. Washington. D.C. DEAR Ms. NAYLOR: At the request of the Labor Committee for ERA. I called your office on Friday. January 21 and informed them that we would like to sign on as a supporter of the bill that Senator Tsongas Is introducing on Tuesday on the ERA. For your information. attached are our 1978 and 1982 Convention resolutions in support of the ERA. Very truly yours.
Date: 1983-02-03
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today to introduce legislation which may qualify as one of the oldest "new" bills to come before us in these 2 years. I am asking you today to approve an amendment to the Constitution which was written by the same Founding Fathers who drafted the larger. original document. The Bill of Rights original second article. in just 24 words. provided for a deferral of any increase in compensation for Members of Congress until after an election of the House. The legislation was intended at its writing in 1789 to instill a sense of responsibility in the process. as well as the removal of personalities from this difficult. alltoofrequent chore. One of the most gratifying aspects of America is its total lack of a statute of limitations on good ideas. While 1789 may not have been the right time for this Idea. 1983 certainly is. Ratification. even 200 years later. is a worthwhile goal. Thank you.
Date: 1983-03-16
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman. contained in the preamble to this resolution is this statement: Whereas the increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems by both the United States and the Soviet Union have not strengthened international peace and security but in fact enhance the prospect for mutual destruction. I would take issue with that statement. If you look at the first 40 years of this century. you will find that we went through two major world holocausts before we had nuclear weapons. In the last 40 years. we have managed to maintain international peace and security because the United States did indeed possess these weapons. We came out of World War II with a nuclear monopoly. If it had been the intent of the United States to use this capability with aggressive Intent. to use it for conquest. obviously we were in a position where no one could do anything about it. The fact is. the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States has been the chief deterrent to aggression in this world. Nuclear weapons in our possession have been the chief source of the preservation of international peace and security over the past generation. I think it is important for each and every one of us to recognize that the beatitude reads. "Blessed are the peace makers. not the peace lovers." Presumably all of us. all rational. decent human beings. love peace. Making peace is an infinitely more difficult and complex process than simply loving peace. George Washington reminded us when he was President of the United States that those who desire peace should prepare for war. That was not an original remark with Washington because he stole it from a Greek named Vegetius who had said the same thing 2000 years before. and Vegetius stole it from a Babylonian. I think it is important for all of us to be conscious of the fact that much as we might desire to do so. as generations previously have desired to change their time and circumstance. we bit of the fruit of knowledge. we developed a nuclear capability that cannot be repealed. the 20th century cannot be repealed. We are stuck with enormously serious and complex problems. So rather than run from those problems. as it strikes me the resolution is intended to do. and which the amendment submitted by the gentleman from New York would seek to prevent from happening. I think we should seek to control our destiny. In my Judgment. the amendment submitted by the gentleman from New York is consistent with the goal of making peace and guaranteeing international peace and stability. which is the wish. I know. of all Members of this body. whichever side they come up on in this debate. So I would urge my colleagues to get behind the amendment submitted by the gentleman from New York.
Date: 1983-03-16
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. may I direct a question to the chairman of the committee? My understanding of what the gentleman is saying. Mr. Chairman. is that if we want to renovate or update antiquated equipment. that is a nego. tiable item between the Soviets and the United States that they might agree upon. If they might agree upon it. are you suggesting the Soviets would have a veto power?
Date: 1983-03-16
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: S

If the gentleman will yield further. what I understand the chairman to be saying is that we do not have to negotiate this. Unilaterally. what the chairman is saying. is we can indeed upgrade equipment so long as there is no proliferation. an increased number. we can qualitatively improve existing equipment and we do not have to get the Soviets consent to do that.
Date: 1983-03-16
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Chairman. under the provisions of the motion just made. does this mean again that one of the 11 amendments that are pending on the resolution could theoretically consume the entire time until 11:30?
Date: 1983-03-17
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to offer legislation which is long. long overdue. Its form and content are simple and without controversy. its history is lengthy and its ratification by this Congress is a matter of growing urgency. This legislation calls for Congress to ratify an agreement for the future distribution and use of water in the socalled Goose Lake Basin. shared by my home State of Oregon and our southern neighbor. the State of California. Such compacts between States which set forth the proper use of water resources must. as you know. be approved by the Congress before they may take effect. This agreement is virtually without opposition. Both the State Legislatures of Oregon and California ratified this compact in 1961. 19 years ago. Yet. for some reason. Congress has not yet acted in this ratification. I join with my colleagues in this Congress.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. this bill. H.R. 1149. the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1983. I believe is far from ready for presentation to this House. and I urge you today to reject a rule at this time. In the first place. this legislation has moved with a speed warranted by neither Its content nor its background. The bill was introduced only a matter of weeks ago. Surely this Congress and its 97 predecessors have taken a more leisurely approach to far more expansive bills in the past. I see no reason to rush the Congress to judgment on this one. We are today facing absolutely no deadlines. We are not threatened by the loss of the land in question from Federal possession. There is no home State clamor to take action. which this bill proposes. and there is no reason for haste. Second. this bill seeks to place an additional 1 million acres of Oregon land in federally designated wilderness category. More than twothirds of that land Is located in my congressional districtactually. almost 70 percent of that land. I have not had an opportunity to open the legislation to hearings at a local level in Oregon. As spokesman for most of the Oregon land impacted by this bill. I would feel exceptionally remiss in allowing this legislation to reach the floor without local hearings. A survey conducted just 2 weeks ago indicated that twothirds of the Oregonians who voiced an opinion said they did not feel that the State should have more wilderness areatwothirds of all Oregonians in every congressional district. At this time. my own congressional questionnaire is returning and answers the same question in the same way. but adds in my congressional district that 70 percent and more of the people do not want additional wilderness in the Second Congressional District. To proceed without asking them. in my opinion. would be legislative snobbery. Finally. this Congress still has no firm idea of this bills full economic impact. Neither the advocates nor the opponents can say with any certainty just how many jobs will be lost or how much taxation will be forfeited by the enactment of this bill. By the best calculations available to me in this very short time. the lost employment has been placed at 6.000 to 8.000 jobs. and I suggest that you have been hearing different points from different areas. But to pretend that a bill with this much impact on community employment can be drafted. presented. and adequately debated while its actual results are still in question is preposterous. and I agree. So I urge you to reject the rule for H.R. 1149. May I suggest to the gentleman from Ohio that I do appreciate his interest in the State of Oregon and the hearings that were held in the State of Oregon. but I point out to everyone that those hearings were held in 1981. I appreciate that extensive travel. that he took. yet today. 1983 is a time when we must look at another bill. another acreage requirement. different boundaries. and different impacts. and I ask again that this House not grant a rule.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman from Alaska. I want to point out further that the facts are that wilderness by itself does not enhance a fishery. The gentleman pointed out that if you want a fishery. then you have to have enhancement. and that is the key to the fishery in Oregon and the fishery in Alaska and the fishery in the Pacific Northwest. The mere blocking out and tying up of land at any headwaters or anywhere is not the answer to a strong. viable fishery. and I suggest that is where we ought to put the emphasis. if we want a better fishery. on the enhancement side.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for pointing out that the hearings were really 2 years ago in my State. except. of course. the congressional hearings. but I think the point remains that there was one hearing in this district in La Grande which the gentleman conductedand I appreciate thatin 1981. But I am only suggesting that the boundaries have changed radically.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield. I just want to make the point to the gentleman that the boundaries have been so changed. In fact. the acreage has been increased by some 100.000 acres. Some 127.000 acres were added. and there was a 27.000acre reduction. So the Impact of this bill is almost brand new. That was my only point. and I thought that further hearings would clarify everybodys position in Oregon.