macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1994-04-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the House is scheduled to consider this week H.R. 4092. the Violent Crime Control Act. I would like to express my support for this bill and encourage my colleagues to support this bill as well. In my home State of Texas our prisons are at peak capacity and our local county governments are forced to bear the cost of incarcerating criminals that the State cannot find room for.. H.R. 4092 would not only provide the funds needed to build additional prisons. it will move us in the right direction in crime control. This bill contains the "three strikes and youre out" provision. components of the Violence Against Women Act. as well as grants to State and local governments to develop innovative programs to deal with juvenile offenders. These programs could include boot camps. weekend incarceration. or community service for young offenders. In Houston. we have reduced our crime rate by increasing the number of police. President Clinton has used this example as a model for his plan to put 50.000 new police on the streets through a Federal grant system for community policing. We need only pick up a newspaper or turn on the local television news to be reminded of our crime problem. Our citizens are scared to walk the streets and often fear answering the doorbell without carrying a gun. We must do better at controlling this problem and H.R. 4092 is a good start. One of our local television stations in Houston has a special called "City under Siege" which highlights the crime problem. Our Nation is under siege as well and it is time to enact a crime control package that responds to the violence that plagues this Nation.
Date: 1994-04-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. our economy is slowly improving and as much as we would like to take credit for our new growth. we must also recognize that all segments of our economy are not growing as quickly as they should be. In fact. a number of companies are eliminating jobs. For instance. General Motors has plans to eliminate 69.000 jobs. Sears will eliminate 50.000. IBM38.500. and AT&Tover 33.000. This is hardly an economic boom yet the Federal Reserve has decided to raise interest rates three times this year. We have made a great deal of progress toward improving our economy and thelow interest rates we have experienced have fueled much of this recovery. Clamping down on the money supply only makes sense to curb inflation yet the Fed points to no real evidence of inflation when it raises rates. Rather they argue that they are mitigating against future inflation by raising rates now rather than when inflation is apparent. This equates to no more than firing shots in the dark. Let us look at who is hurt by a sharp rise in interest rates. The first time home buyer who may have been prepared to close a deal on their new home this week may have seen their payments raised and. the small business who may have been looking for a loan to expand has now found the banks unresponsive and the rates rising out of reach. Our economy is growing but it is far from overheating. The recent actions by the Federal Reserve have sent a message of restraint to an economy in need of expansion. We know that the only way to truly eliminate our national debt is to grow out of it and a lot more growth in our economy is needed. I urge the Federal Reserve to stop chasing shadows and wait for real signs of inflation before taking any further action to raise interest rates.
Date: 1994-04-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve the administration of claims and obligations of the -Farmers Home Administration. and for other purposes. and ask for its Immediate consideration In the House.
Date: 1994-04-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am only here temporarily. Madam Speaker. S. 1930 will give the Department of Agriculture additional authority to more quickly and costeffectively clean up the backlog of delinquent farm loan cases. S. 1930 will allow USDA to hire private attorneys to work on cases involving delinquent farm loans held by FmHA. The Department already has this authority for FmHA rural housing loans and the results have been encouraging for the taxpayer. According to the Department of Agriculture. the average time for a private attorney to complete a foreclosure in a rural housing loan case is 8.8 months. The savings from using private attorneys for rural housing loans is over $7.500 per caseor a total savings of over $11 million in 1992. S. 1930 will allow the Department to achieve similar time and cost efficiencies on the farm lending side. This legislation will help the Department more quickly resolve thousands of foreclosures cases. particularly those involving a million dollars or more which have been the focus of considerable criticism. Under this legislation. the loan recoveries that would be made through the use of private attorneys would far exceed the cost of employing the attorneys. This legislation is identical to H.R. 4139 that was introduced by the gentleman from South Dakota and other members of the Committee on Agriculture. The bill- also has the support of Agriculture Secretary Espy. I strongly urge the House to support the passage of S. 1930. Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD at this point the text of a letter I received from the USDAs Office of General Counsel. In this letter. the general counsel states that the Department. in exercising the new authority S. 1930. would employ the same procedures. including providing reports to Congress. that is used under similar authority in collecting delinquent rural housing loans.
Date: 1994-04-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to make certain technical corrections. and for other purposes.. and ask for its immediate consideration.
Date: 1994-04-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker. S. 2005 corrects language that was omitted or mistakenly changed in the drafting of the 1990 farm bill and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Three changes are provided for in S. 2005. First. ft restores language allowing cotton and rice farmers to count prevented plantings toward the 50 percent planting requirement under the 50/ 85 programs. Second. it clarifies the payment rate calculation for barley. And third. it clarifies how the -reduction in price received by dairy farmers would be calculated in the event of a 7 billion pound surplus. I urge the House to support the passage of S. 2005.
Date: 1994-04-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1930 and S. 2005. the Senate bill just passed.
Date: 1994-04-26
Speaker: DONALD W. RIEGLE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Chairman. Committee on Banking. Housing. and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate.. Washington. DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN RIEGLE: I am writting to .communicate the growing concern of South Dakota bankers with the -provisions for foreign bank branching found in the House interstate banking bill . It is my understanding that you have received a letter from Ballard Cassady. Jr.. executive vice president of the Kentucky Bankers Association which describes in some detail the differences between the interstate banking bill passed by the House. -and the bill currently before the Senate . Mr. Cassadys letter illustrates the significant competitive advantages given to foreign banks in the House bill. We believe that the Senate interstate banking bill is much more balanced in its treatment of foreign and domesticallychartered banks. We do not believe that foreign banks operating domestically should receive preferential treatment over banks domiciled in the United States.We hope you will makes every effort to keep the Senate interstate banking bill free of established preferential treatment to unIncorporated foreign banks in the U.S. We also hope you can be successful in maintaining this position in the conference report Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely.
Date: 1994-04-26
Speaker: DONALD W. RIEGLE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Chairman. Committee on Banking. Housing. and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate. Washington. DC. DEAR CHAiamANRnGLE: The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to the foreign branching language in the House interstate banking bill . Unlike the Senate interstate bill which provides that foreign banks could. like domestic banks. branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in this country and then branching from such a- bank. the House interstate bill would allow foreign banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches and agencies of foreign banks are not subject to FDIC insurance premiums. nor CRA. this would add to the already unfair advantage they have over U.S. domestically chartered banks. According to the recently completed GATT agreement. the host country should provide .foreign financial institutions treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like service providers. There is no obligation to give foreign institutions more favorable treatment. Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. They account for a 42% share of all business loans made In the United States. This fact is not because U.S. banks are not interested in quality loans. but more due to the fact that foreign banks have competitive advantage over U.S. banks in our own market. I would request that every -effort be made to keep the Senate interestate banking bill free from established preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the United States. U.S. banking regulations are in place for a reason. and the regulations should apply to all financial institutions. domestic or foreign. whochoose to do business in the United States. Sincerely.
Date: 1994-04-26
Speaker: DONALD W. RIEGLE (democrat)
Chamber: S

Chairman. Committee on Banking. Housing. and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate. Washington. DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN RIEGLE: I am writting to communicate the growing concern of South Dakota baikers with the provisions for foreign bank branching found in the House interstate banking bill (HR. 3841). It is my understanding that you have received a letter from Ballard Cassady. Jr...executive vice president of the Kentucky Bankers Association which describes in some detail the differences between the interstate banking bill passed by .the House. and the bill.currently before the Senate . Mr. Cassadys letter illustrates the significant competitive advantages given to foreign banks in the House bill. We believe that the Senate interstate banking bill is much more balanced in its treatment of foreign and domesticallychartered banks. We do not believe that foreign banks operating domestically should receive preferential treatment over banks domiciled in the United States. We hope you will makes every effort to keep the Senate interstate banking bill free of established preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the U.S. We also hope you can be successful in maintaining this position in the conference report. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely.
Date: 1994-04-26
Speaker: DONALD W. RIEGLE (democrat)
Chamber: S

Chairman. Committee on Banking. Housing.. and Urban Affairs. U.S. Senate. Washington. DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN RIEGLE: The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to the foreign branching language in the House interstate banking bill . Unlike the Senate interstate bill which provides that foreign banks could. like domestic banks. branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in this country and then branching from such a bank. the House interstate bill would allow foreign banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches and agencies of foreign banks are not subject to FDIC insurance premiums. nor CRA. this would add to the already unfair advantage they have over U.S. domestically chartered banks. According to the recently completed GATT agreement. the host country should provide foreign financial institutions treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like service providers. There is no obligation to give foreign institutions more favorable treatment. Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. They account for a 42% share of all business loans made in the United States. This fact is not because U.S. banks are not interested in quality loans. but more due. to the fact that foreign banks have competitive advantage over U.S. banks in our own market. I would request that every effort be made to keep the Senate interestate banking bill free from established preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the United States. U.S. banking regulations are in place for a reason. and the regulations should apply to all financial institutions. domestic or foreign. who choose to do business in the United States. Sincerely.
Date: 1994-05-05
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I must regretfully rise in opposition to H.R. 4296. The supporters of this legislation argue that this bill will ban 19 specific types of assault weapons. however. they fail to mention that aside from these 19 specifically named weapons this bill also contains a far reaching ban of other guns and allows the Treasury Department to determine which of these guns would be banned. I agree that we should restrict access to guns such as the Uzi. the Tec 9 and the AK47 assault rifle. These guns have become the gun of choice for gangs and drug dealers and they have no other legitimate use other than to kill people. There are two sides to this debate and both sides have legitimate fears. One side sees its right to keep and bear arms slipping away and the other sees its right to a safe and secure neighborhood slipping away. There has to be a middle ground that addresses the concems of both sides and for that reason I offered an amendment to this bill that would have only banned the 19 assault weapons listed In the bill. However. due to the restrictive rule that was issued on this bill I am not allowed to offer this compromise amendment. Had this amendment passed I could have voted for this bill. The issue of gun control is not an easy issue since it involves weighing the concern for public safety against the rights of individuals. These individual rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and we should be extremely careful when the legislation we consider might affect these rights. A broad based gun ban infringes on these rights and while the need for public safety justifies the restriction of specific weapons it does not justify this broad based ban. Both sides of this issue have shown an unwillingness to compromise and it is apparent that they both are taking an "all or nothing" approach. This is an unfortunate commentary on what our political system has become and it represents a significant loss for the American people no matter which side of this issue they are on.
Date: 1994-05-05
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to this bill to ban ugly guns. This debate is perhaps a perfect metaphor for politics today. It Is all about form and appearance. little about substance. This bill is the proverbial blowdried. goldenmaned. straightteeth. red tie. blue shirt. game show host. goodlooking politician. How could anyone be against it? Who could be against a bill that bans ugly guns? To confirm that this bill is all and only about appearance. let us look at the criteria that the bills authors use as a basis for banning these guns. But first let us note what they do not use. They do not consider how fast a gun can shoot. the size or speed of its projectile. how hard it hits the target. or how accurate a weapon is. They do not use that type of criteria because there is no difference in the fire power of the guns they ban and those they do not. Let us look at the criteria they do use. The bill bans a gun if it has two of the following five criteria: A folding stock. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuousyyes. conspicuously. a bayonet mount. a flash suppressor attachment. or a grenade launcher attachment. Not one deals with fire power. We talk of stopping the shooting. and we ban bayonet mounts. A gun with all five criteria may be mudfence ugly. but it is not more deadly. And these criteria have nothing at all to do with crime. Eightyeight percent of our police chiefs agree. When was the last time we heard of a crime that involved a fixed bayonet or a launched grenade? If the criminals of America for some reason agreed to abide by this bill and removed their flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. would we save a single life? If our Government is going to take anything away. anything even ugly things. from anyone. it has the burden to prove that It is more than ugly. It has the heavy burden of proving the furtherance of a public purpose. For many and probably most Americans. this debate is bewildering. Why would anyone oppose a ban on these ugly weapons? Because ugly is not enough. In a democracy that cherishes liberty. yes. even eccentric expressions of liberty. the burden is on the bills proponents to prove. not that this bill will not hurt. but that it will advance a legitimate and overriding social purpose. a purpose that overrides the liberty that it takes away. however trivial some may consider that liberty to be. The proponents have not done this. and they cannot. because ugly is not enough. Mr. Chairman. this proposal is a goldenmaned. talk show host. goodlooking measure. and in spite of those boasting of their courage in supporting it. it is popular. very popular. The politically unpopular vote is no. It is the right vote. Ugly is not enough.
Date: 1994-05-11
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. as we continue the process of passing a comprehensive health care plan for all Americans we find ourselves stumbling over issues such as how to control the growing costs of our health care system. The skyrocketing cost of obtaining health care coverage has driven the call for reform. How best to control these costs however is a primary component of the Presidents plan and the version of that plan that our committees are considering. When we look at cost control mechanisms. establishing limits on the future growth of costs are the answer. This mechanism is effective and it also has the benefit of predictability and provides for a more stable market. There are those who view these types of cost controls as ineffective and who are seeking to eliminate them from the plan. however the result of that would be merely the continuation of the status quo. First. people would continue to pay skyrocketing costs and there would be no incentive to control costs. Second. small business and families would continue to be the big losers. Anyone who has ever tried to put together a longterm economic strategy for a business or even a government budget can tell you that the unknown. future costs relating to health care are the most -frustrating and often budget busting factors in the plan. Our own Federal budget is busting at the seams due -to the rising costs of health care and we will continue down the road to "economic ruin unless we face up to the reality that health care costs must be controlled.
Date: 1994-05-12
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. during rollcall vote No. 168 on H.R. 2442. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted "yes."
Date: 1994-05-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. we have before us today H.R. 2473. as amended by the House Natural Resources Committee. H.R. 2473 would designate certain national forest lands in the State of Montana as wilderness. release other national forest lands in the State of Montana for multiple use management and for other purposes. Montana has over 6 million acres of qualifying roadless areas in its 10 national forests and 3.4 million acres of already designated wilderness. H.R. 2473. as amended by the Natural Resources Committee. would add an additional 1.7 million acres of wilderness. designate 240.000 acres of special management areas and designate 375.000 acres as wilderness study areas. Mr. Speaker. I urge that the House approve final passage of the legislation..
Date: 1994-05-17
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. since his. sad passing just a few weeks ago. people from. all walks of life have extolled the remarkable qualities. and exceptional. achievements of William Natcher. By every measure. Bill. Natcher was an extraordinary man. a superlative Member. an outstanding chairman. a gracious gentleman. and. to me and many. many others. a real friend. There is little that I can add to what has already been said about Bill Natcher. other than to recount a few of my personal experiences that I believe well illustrate the deep principals and heartfelt generosity that Bill Natcher always showed to me and people- ofthe Virgin Islands. Thirty years ago. my district experienced the impact of large scale immigration. made far more challenging by the islands small size and. insular nature. After a federal court decision required the Virgin Islands school system. to teach the children of all residents. I felt the Federal Government had. an obligation to help insure that all young people had the opportunity to receive the best possible public education. Doing so would be an important investment in them and in the future of our community. I developed and had authorized a special assistance to education program. but without appropriations the program was on the books but. would never reach the classrooms. Thats when Bill Natcher. as Appropriations Subcommittee chairman. stepped in. In a purely pragmatic sense. he had no reason. to support a. program for school children as far away from Kentucky as the Virgin Islands. Bill Natcher would gain no political advantage by supporting my request to fund a program when many other districts with powerful members were. competing for money. But Chairman Natcher did help. He recognized the needs of Virgin Islands young. people. were no less important then those of every other school child in this Nation. He knew that nothing in their young lives would be more. important than a solid education. So. he saw to it that my program was funded. Last year. the last time as. it turned out that I would be privileged to testify before him. I was joined by my Governor. Alexander A. Farrelly. Always the epitome of graciousness. Chairman Natcher left the dias to personally greet the Governor. The Chairman remembered the Governor by name and he took him aside to chat. until the duties of the committee called him. back.. Those sorts of courtesy. personal interest and. genuine kindness are rare indeed. but they were typical of Bill Natcher. He knew what was. right and he did it. from insuring the education. of. children we would never meet to greeting a man he had. no reason to recall other than his personal interest and courtesy. These were the qualities of a truly extraordinary man. and why Bill Natcher was so respected: andi admired. Chairman Natcher now is gone. but his legacy and his example will always remain within this Chamber. will dwell here so long as. we. remember this remarkable man and the principles he lived by.