macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1996-01-25
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the debate. I am seldom up on a rule. But all of us can see through this rule. We can say whatever we want to say about the rhetoric. All of us understand each other. All of us. 100 percent of us. want to balance the budget. There is no question about that. The question is balancing the budget in two diverse ways. For the most part. the people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not want to balance the budget by cutting education. cutting all of Medicaid. cutting all of Medicare. and making sure that people do not have access to clean and safe water. We want considerations. All of us know that when we start altering the rules of the House. coming up with different rules to get by. it is to muffle those voices. All of us know that the reason why the Government has been shut down is because the attempt has been to pass these drastic. draconian cuts in the continuing resolution. Let us not play games with each other. It is time for us to give the American people a sensible solution. and we cannot do it by forgetting that they exist. They exist and they need to be given attention. We just cannot steamroll it through and think that we are taking care of the business of the American people. The bulk of the people in this Nation. 80 percent of them. care about the education of their children for the future. We have all said we need better educated. better trained work forces. How are we going to get them with all of the opportunities to cut. and we know that that is what we are doing in a rule that simply passes all of the philosophical types of draconian cuts in a continuing resolution. knowing full well that we are going to blame the Republicans. because that is where we sincerely feel it is going to be. The Republicans are going to blame the Democrats in saying they do not want to balance the budget. All of us want to balance the budget and all of us know that. It is the way in which we want to balance it. I would say it is time for us to stop playing games with the public and with ourselves.
Date: 1996-01-25
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we might have had 26 years. but the budget was unbalanced during the ReaganBush years on the backs of the same people we are victimizing now.
Date: 1996-01-25
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. during that 12 years when we went toward a downward spiral. the whole philosophy was triekledown. We are trying to reinvent that. It does not work. It did not work then. it will not work now. We cannot victimize and enslave all of the people of this Nation just to say we are balancing the budget to give this tax break to the wealthy. It will not work.
Date: 1996-01-25
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. my colleague. the gentleman from Texas. pointed to the cuts in bilingual education. But let me go down the list of the cuts. I agree with our ranking member. we have to pass this. but some of the cuts. 25 percent for Education 2000: Title I gets 17 percent. safe and drugfree schools. a 25percent cut. That is what we are talking about. We are up against the wall because these programs cannot function. and yet they are taking a 25percent cut because the majority is cutting education funding that 80 percent of the people in our country support.
Date: 1996-01-30
Speaker: THOMAS DOWNS (democrat)
Chamber: S

President. Amtrak. 60 Massachusetts Avenue NE. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. DOWNS. The Thursday. January 25 edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that Amtrak has decided to stop using the traditional names for train service in the Northeast corridor. In conversations with Amtrak officials. my staff has confirmed that Amtrak has decided that the "Yankee Clipper." "The Mohawk." "Mayflower." "Connecticut Yankee." the overnight to Boston. "The Night Owl." and nearly all the others. will no longer be used. It appears that nearly all of Amtraks Northeast corridor trains will be referred to as "Northeast Direct" followed by a number such as 142 or 147. Quite frankly. I cannot understand this decision. A spokeswoman for Amtrak was quoted as saying that these names were colorful. but not helpful. According to this spokeswoman. "if you hear the Catskill. it doesnt really tell you where youre going." That may be true. But certainly. Northeast Direct 147 tells travelers even less. At least. the Connecticut Yankee suggests the train is headed to New England. Northeast Direct 147 tells you nothing. Mr. Downs. I urge you immediately reconsider this decision. These names are part of tradition. And it is a tradition that is partially a public trust. It is nearly equivalent to having the.Interioir Department redesignate Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks as Western Parks I and 2. As you know. since 1971. Amtrak has received $13 billion in federal funding to help cover its operating capital and labor costs. Legislation that is currently on the Senate calendar would establish an Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund. the lions share of whose funds would go to Amtrak. The proposal calls for Amtrak to receive more than $2 billion over the next four years. I believe Amtrak has made a mistake and I believe you ought to fix it immediately. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely.
Date: 1996-02-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the House is on the verge of leaving town before addressing the problem of our debt limit. Instead of working to raise the debt limit and protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. the Republican majority has spent the past few months in a game of brinkmanship with the White House. For awhile it was: Give us what we want or we will close down the Government. Now it is: Give us what we want or we will default on our debt. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to resist this approach. It will reduce the public opinion of Congress even further. and it has real and adverse consequences. The main point of raising the debt ceiling is to pay our current obligations. to pay those Treasury billholders and to pay those U.S. savings bond purchasers. It is not about increasing our future spending. I have cosponsored a resolution to keep the House in session until it considers a clean bill on the debt ceiling. and I urge my colleagues to support it. I have also signed a resolution asking our Republican leaders to let a clean debt ceiling bill come to the floor. We must pass a clean debt ceiling bill to send a message to the world that we will keep our word and pay our bills. Do not default on America.
Date: 1996-02-01
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 652. although I do not do so without reservation. As this legislation was being worked out. many of the concerns I had were dealt with in a positive manner. Agreements have been reached which give my home of Dallas needed language regarding rightsofway. a matter of concern to me throughout the negotiation process regarding telecommunications reform. Additionally. I have had some concern about the possibility of the regional Bell operating companies using this legislation as a basis to engage in massive downsizing. Although I realize that some change in the operations of these companies is inevitable. I have been most interested in protecting valuable jobs in my district. Because of assurances that I have received concerning the position of Southwestern Bell with respect to these jobs. I am pleased to add my support. and my vote. to pass this historic legislation.
Date: 1996-02-07
Speaker: JOHN TANNER (democrat)
Chamber: S

We also have consulted closely with the administration on this bill. It is my hope that the Senate will now pass H.R. 2196 with small perfecting and clarification amendments worked out in consultation with interested Senators. We have worked with the House on these perfecting amendments. and I hope that the House can pass the amended H.R. 2196 without further changes. clearing the bill for transmittal to the President. The title of the Housepassed bill is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. The Senate title is similar: the Technology Transfer Improvements Act. The two bills are based on earlier legislation that Representative MORELLA and I introduced in the last Congress and which has been thoroughly checked with all interested parties. The current legislation makes valuable amendments in existing law but contains no authorizations or controversial spending proposals. It has bipartisan support herein Congress. and has the support of the administration. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1164 without objection on November 3 of last year. H.R. 2196 passed the House by voice vote on December 12. Mr. President. this is a constructive bill that has earned the bipartisan support now evident. The legislation has three main parts. First. the heart of both bills is legislation that Mrs. MORELLA and I authored to help improve the transfer of technology from Federal laboratories to the private sector. The Federal Government spends some $20 billion a year on its laboratories. They employ some of the finest scientists and engineers in the world. have some of the best facilities and new technologies. This bill will cut the time and redtape involved in creating joint research projects between companies and these Federal laboratories. And that. Mr. President. will help companies in West Virginia and all across the country. The country or countries that can develop and use new technologies most quickly and efficiently will win the markets of the future. This bill will help speed joint research projects. and increase their number. leading to new technologies that companies can use to produce new products. revitalize existing ones. and build markets. And that means more jobs and a more competitive America. Second. the bill contains important amendments to the Fastener Quality Act of 1990. a law. which regulates the manufacture and sale of highstrength bolts and other fasteners used in safetyrelated applications such as motor vehicles. aircraft. and buildings. These amendments have been championed here in the Senate by Senator BuRNs. and they will reduce the burden of the law on private industry while maintaining public safety. Third. the House version of the bill now before us contains several nonspending measures regarding technical agencies and the use of privatesector technical standards.
Date: 1996-02-27
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. during the recess I attended an education forum in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Gerald Tirozzi and Democratic leader DICK GEPHARDr at Travis Elementary School in my district in Houston. TX. With the uncertainty over funding levels for elementary and secondary education programs and the likelihood of deep budget cuts. schools all across our country are having a difficult time planning for next year and may even be forced to lay off teachers. The immediate result could be fewer teachers. larger classes. and a decline in the quality of education. We heard -from teachers. parents. school administrators. police officers. as well as church officials. who are scared to death that their children will not be getting the proper preparation they need to compete and win in the new global marketplace. We all believe in a balanced budget. deficit reduction. and cutting bureaucracy. but we all agreed that cutting education programs is the wrong way to achieve these goals. How can we make America stronger if we are not willing to invest in the future of America. with our young peoples education? Mr. Speaker. drastic cuts in title I. Goals 2000. the Safe and Drug Free Schools. and all other educational programs will cause irreparable harm not just to students in Travis Elementary in my district but students all across the country and Texas. It is wrong. and we should not do it.
Date: 1996-02-27
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I have the honor of representing the tiny communityof Poolville in Parker County. TX. northwest of Fort Worth. TX. Poolville headlined the national news last week with grass fires that left hundreds homeless and charred over 20.000 acres. I want to thank the Federal. State. and county officials for their dedicated work. They responded innovatively. quickly. and helped divert what could have been an even worse disaster. But. above all. Mr. Speaker. I want to commend the hundreds of volunteer firefighters who fought the blaze until it was finally brought under control. fought it well past the point of their personal exhaustion. and kept going until the job was finished. Mr. Speaker. the selfless response of the neighbors to the plight of those who were the fire victims. neighbors from hundIreds of miles away gave of their time. they gave of their money. they gave of their resources. and they opened their homes to attend to the needs of the fire victims. The response was truly an inspiration. Mr. Speaker. the Poolville fire was a disaster. The human response to the fire to this disaster. was a triumph of the human spirit.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. we are getting dangerously close to default. and simply put. there is the wrong way to run the finances of our great Nation. Congress failure to raise the debt ceiling will have immediate and devastating effects. The U.S. credit rating will be ruined. Social Security checks on which 43 million senior citizens rely will bounce. Benefits for over 37 million of our Nations veterans will not be allocated. Pensions for 4 million civilian and military retirees are at risk. Mr. Speaker. this is craziness. This is deja vu back to the days of holding the Government hostage to force acceptance of a balanced budget plan that the American people have rejected. Now the Republicans are trying it all over again. except this time the hostage is our Nations full faith and credit. 43 million senior citizens. 3 million veterans. and 4 million civilian and military retirees. When will they learn? Waiting until the last minute and insisting on including provisions that have nothing to do with the debt limit is the height of irresponsibility. and my friends on the otber side of the aisle should be ashamed.. It is time we pass a clean debt ceiling bill and get on about the Nations business. Shame on coming this.close to defaulting on our Nations obligations.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. I rise in opposition to the rule. Regardless of theamendments and regardless of the pros and the cons. I am concerned with the process. and I have. throughout these meetings. have disagreed with the process that no bill came out of the Committee on Agriculture in the beginning. It was taken. picked from the air and put into the reconciliation bill. the one that was vetoed by the President. Let me mention here a lot of colleagues on the other side are saying the President vetoed a farm bill. He did not. He vetoed that whole mess that was a reconciliation bill. But let me say that I am not satisfied that we have.followed a fair processall of my tenure here in this Congress. 32 years. we have had bipartisanship. we have come out of the committee. disagreement here. disagreement there. but we have come out of the committee with a product from the committee. This is not a- product from the committee. It has come from other sources for other reasons that is not a product of the committee. The rule does not provide for openness. We have always had open rules or the farm bill so that everyone. regardlese of how we feel or how they feel. has had an opportunity to address the issues in which they would be involved or which mattered to them. This has not been done. and as a former chairman of the committee. I know there will be amendments that I would be opposed to. but I cannot in good conscience agree to a rule that limits this Member or that Member. This is not a committee bill. this is not a consensus bill. and I must oppose the rule.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman. I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned. "Got to act now." We had all of last year to act. But you were. doing some contract .business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture. fruit and vegetables. they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up. and you do not know what the market is going to be. up or down. So. Mr. Chairman. we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor. says his thing. the one that is not here comes and say another thing. I wish we could keep it all in context.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman. I wish to clarify what the gentlewoman just mentioned who just spoke and the colleague from North Dakota. Mr. POMEROY. felt that his word had been challenged. I agree with the gentleman. One. the only thing that I agree with the gentlewoman is this is not a perfect bill. period. A negotiated package: I do not know who they negotiated with. because I was not a party. Any member of the minority was not a party. So I do not know who they negotiated with. I will state here and now that there was no hearing on the introduced bill which we are discussing now. no hearings. Now. they rambled all over the United States prior to the session. but basically all of that was lost because of this contract business that we wasted all of last year on. So the gentleman from North Dakota was correct. and I back him. There was no hearing at all on the introduced bill. It was a negotiated package? I do not know who they negotiated with. unless it was the majority with their leadership..
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman. I do so to commend the gentleman from Missouri. who just spoke. Unfortunately we do not have the nutrition part in this bill. but the gentleman has been a leader and has worked diligently in that area. Hopefully. we might soon get on to farm bill II so that we might cover those areas that our distinguished colleague from Missouri has worked so hard on. We thank the gentleman for his interests and for what the gentleman has done.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman. no farmer is forced to use the program. Letting farmers plant what they want. when they want it. how they want it. they can do that now. We were ratcheting down. We were reforming. We were changing. We are taking regulation down. We were doing that in a systematic manner. at the same time saving $50 billion. The previous gentleman. he would not listen when we mentioned and said the farmer wants Government out of his hair. Government can be out of his hair today and continues to be. Mr. Chairman. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina .
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. STENHOLMI. our distinguished colleague and a great leader in this effort.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of those that have participated in the debate. I may not have agreed with all that has been said. I have taken and would take exception to some of the areas that have been addressed. I think incorrectly. but nonetheless I would not challenge any Members prerogative to say what she or he might want -to. But I do want to again say that when there was mention that it was negotiated. it was not negotiated with the minority. certainly not with the ranking member of the minority. I now suspect that it was negotiated with this task force led by the gentleman from Washington and not with the minority. so it was a negotiation within the majority and their leadership. and that is a flawed process. This is a peoples House. this is where people are supposed to. through their elected Representatives. have input into the legislative process. We had none. Those of us that happen to be in the minority had no opportunity to represent our people. to represent our constituencies. We were not given that opportunity. -and this is the flawed process that I am objecting to. At the Committee on Rules. the same thing. We have been told. well. that is how the Democrats did it. It is here and now. and I am not here to argue how or when or what. All I know is that we are effectively told this is how it is going to be done. we are in charge and we are sorry if you do not like it. that is too bad. Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague. the gentleman from Georgia .
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri in order to give us some history on this amendment.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. for the reasons already delineated. I oppose the amendment. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman. when I came here. we had a 16 million bale carryover. The world was in complete disarray. Mexico was afraid we were going to dump. We had tremendous problems. Then we came up with this type of program. I was in Korea about that time when they told me with very much pride. "Look. this is Texas cotton. Texas cotton." We started losing that market. then this program came along. It has doing what it was intended to do. Unfortunately. many of our colleagues only aim at areas outside their area for market cuts. But this has been a good program. It has helped. and I can attest to that fact.
Date: 1996-02-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. and I rise against the amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the Shays amendment. This amendment wreaks havoc on rural communities across America that already will suffer substantial income and jobs losses because of the painful reforms in H.R. 2854. the Agricultural Market Transition Act. The reforms already required by the Republican farm bill will result in 5.600 jobs being lost in peanut production regions and total economic losses of almost $500 million. With the reforms already required in the Republican farm bill almost half of all U.S. peanut farmers will face credit eligibility problems in their communities. Mr. Chairman. the reforms are already too painful to peanut farming communities. The Shays amendment will double the pain and suffering that will already be reeling from the cuts in H.R. 2854. This is an unconscionable amendment when one considers that more than 75 percent of peanut farming communities have poverty rates that exceed 20 percent. The meanness of the Shays amendment is further exacerbated by the fact that this farm bill fails to provide rural development funds to help rural communities. like these peanut farming communities. meet the painful transition being forced by the Agricultural Market Transition Act.