macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I am holding in my hand four letters from the Clinton Justice Department. Now these letters state that the Justice Department does not oppose granting of immunity to four key witnesses to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversights investigation into illegal campaign contributions in the Presidents 1996 campaign. Again. these letters are from the Justice Department. and they state that the Justice Department does not oppose the immunization of four witnesses so their testimony may be heard. and yet the Democrats on the committee refuse to grant immunity to these four witnesses in opposition to their own Justice Department: Now we have the mother of all stonewalls. Democrats on the committee are now stonewalling even the Clinton Justice Department. American fatigue over the endless scandals and investigations is exceeded only by the fatigue of the investigators who meet with stonewalling. delay tactics. evasion. convenient memory losses. document shredding and total noncooperation everywhere they turn. Mr. Speaker. the truth is there for all to see. The Democrats are simply not interested in discovering the truth.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. John Milton wrote. "Time is a subtle thief of youth." Well. we are running out of time on devising a plan to save Social Security. and the failure to salvage a broken system is robbing our youth of hope. Whether one is a recent college graduate or a baby boomer. like me. all Americans are caught in the system of retirement with few choices. and it is not a healthy future. Working Americans are paying into Social Security monthly to a total of $484 billion for this year alone. The cost in paying benefits to retirees right now totals $382 billion. This leaves $102 billion to put away for the retirement of the baby boomers and generation X. This money should be managed like a retirement account or personal trust fund. People expect Social Security to be a national retirement savings account. That is the way it should be. Save for the retirement of those paying into the system. We have to reject the Presidents plan to spend all but a handful of that. call it the surplus. and say he is going to take 8 to $10 billion and invest it in saving Social Security. The Treasury said today that .there might be 3 more years in the life of Social Security. Three years? Well. this sounds very. very good for those on Social Security now. and maybe even a few of us older baby boomers. But we have three generations of Americans. my children. my grandchildren. who have put money into that account. and they expect to have something for their future. Where are the leaders that are going to stand up and say. we have a surplus of $100 billi6n a year. money that should go to the future? Where are the leaders that are going to say. this surplus is really enough to stabilize for the next two generations of Social Security accounts? Where are the leaders? I hope that this Commission will recommend that this Congress stop taking $100 billion a year out of Social Security and that they will invest all this in the future of retirement.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. the chairman of the committee and the distinguished Member from the State of Pennsylvania whose leadership on this issue has been exemplary. The government quite frankly can do more to reduce the default rate where student loans are concerned. I would submit this is an important thing for us to consider and for us to pursue. because the high default rate that we are experiencing presently essentially robs resources from other worthy students who have a right to an opportunity to achieve higher education in America. That is true with public resources as well as private resources. The reason this occurs. however. and the area where we ought to look to find a remedy is right in the Federal statute as it exists today. There is a definition in the Higher Education Act for what constitutes due diligence with respect to collecting these loans. The Department of Education unfortunately applies that standard differently under different circumstances. I had offered an amendment in committee which would have proposed to apply this definition of due diligence evenly throughout the law in a way that would cause greater efforts to collect delinquent loans and lower the delinquency rate. That amendment was withdrawn under my direction at the request of the chairman. and it was his Aipril 29. 1998 belief and promise that he would work with me and the sponsor of the bill in directing the Department of Education to increase its efforts at collecting loans that are in default in a way that will effectively lower the default rate. I am proud to say. Mr. Chairman. that the Department of Education to this point has been receptive. Just raising the level of discussion. not only in committee but right here on the floor. -has done quite a lot to make progress in this regard. It is one of those examples where I think we are going to be able to resolve this problem and move in a positive direction without the necessity of additional statutes and additional regulatory law. With that in mind. Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for agreeing with me and the sponsor of the bill that we will continue to press privately with the Department of Education to resolve the problem of loan defaults.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: RICHARD D. BENNETT (republican)
Chamber: H

Chief Counsel. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Rayburn House Office Building. Washington. DC. � DEAR MR. BENNETr: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7. 1998. requesting the Department of Justices position on the granting of Immunity to Larry. Wong. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting Immunity to Mr. Wong. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter. Sincerely.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: RICHARD D. BENNETT (republican)
Chamber: H

Chief Counsel. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Rayburn House Office Building. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. BENNETT: I am writing in response to your letter of April 7. 1998. requesting the Department of Justices position on the granting of immunity to Nancy Lee. The Department of Justice -has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Ms. Lee. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter. Sincerely.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: RICHARD D. BENNETT (republican)
Chamber: H

Chief Counsel. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Rayburn House Office Building. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. BENNETT: I arn writing in response to your letter of April 7. 1998. requesting the Department of Justices position on the granting of immunity to Irene Wu. The Department of Justice has no opposition to the Committee granting immunity to Ms. Wu. We appreciate greatly your coordinating with us on this matter. Sincerely.
Date: 1998-04-29
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I rise tonight on the occasion of this special order to speak about one of the most basic components of campaign finance reform that we have to deal with here in the present Congress and certainly throughout the country as well. There has been a lot of talk. Mr. Speaker. about various ways and strategies to reinstitute a sense of fairness and confidence in our election laws among the American people. But while the discussions about.limited campaign funds. about reporting requirements. about various strategies to disclose the campaign contributions and expenditures of candidates seems to be occupying the center of political debate on campaign finance reform. I believe there is a much more fundamental issue that we need to deal with. and that. is known as the Paycheck Protection Act. What happens today in a strategy to raise funds for various campaigns is that we have a number of organizations that have found creative ways to withdraw the wages of hardworking Americans and siphon those dollars off for political causes of various sorts. Now. this often occurs without the consent or even the knowledge of the wage earner. who is working hard to earn the cash to make all this possible. It occurs in many different settings. but most generally the biggest culprit seems to be labor unions. Labor unions persuade prospective employees to join their organizations* for a variety of very attractive causes. One would be agency representation and collective bargaining. for example. And while those are legitimate functions of labor -unions. functions that I think most people would support and agree with. few people would agree that it is also a good idea to siphon a portion of a workers wages associated with union dues or agency fees and divert those dollars toward political campaigns of various sorts. often campaigns that the union worker themselves. the wage earner themselves. do not support. I want to offer a couple of examples that I think -Members ought to consider. If we read todays headlines. for example. "ExTeamsters Official Indicted". This deals with just one labor union. There are several. And there are several that are very honorable and worthwhile organizations. I am focusing on the one in yesterdays headline. being the Teamsters Union. This is in the Washington Times. "A Federal Grand Jury indicted the Teamsters former political director yesterday on charges of giving $1.1 million in union funds to the Democratic Party. the AFLCIO and liberal advocacy groups so they would launder portions into the reelection campaign of Teamsters President Ron Carey. Now. the Committee on Education and the Workforce is investigating this particular scandal. particularly the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee therein under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan
Date: 1998-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. pursuant to clause 1. rule I. I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speakers approval of the Journal.
Date: 1998-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Date: 1998-04-30
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. as my colleagues know. Democrats are saying the American people are tired of talking about White House scandals. Well. congressional investigators are even more tired of the stonewalling. lack of cooperation and extraordinary memory loss that seems to afflict Harvard and Yale Law School graduates whenever they are called to testify. I believe the American people are stunned by the evasions. the retractions. the utter devotion to spin over truth coming out of this White House. Mr. Speaker. it is Democrats on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight who are doing the stonewalling. Letters from the Justice Department say. and it has been said already. that Justice does not oppose granting immunity to four key witnesses in the campaign finance investigations. and I will just repeat that. The Justice Department does not oppose immunity. and yet the Democrats on the committee refuse to grant immunity. I ask the American people to be the judge. Why would the Democrats be stonewalling their own Justice Department?
Date: 1998-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. the Constitution gives the Congress the direct authority to play a managerial role in only one school district in the entire country. and that is the District of Columbia. Only the District of Columbia is designated by the Constitution again as a place where this Congress has direct authority to deal with the matters at the classroom level of public education. Now. that authority has been decentralized quite a bit. It has been decentralized to a large unionized government and bureaucracy that is failing children and stranding them. denying them any kind of hope or opportunity for achieving the American dream and getting ahead through academic progress and academic proficiency. Mr. Speaker. I find it remarkable that anyone would come here and try to defend the comparative record of the District of Columbia public school system when compared with the rest of the country. If we are willing to do that on an intellectually honest level. one will find very clearly and directly that the children in the District of Columbia schools are at a decided disadvantage over children throughout the rest of the country. Now. the left wing of the Democrat party. as estabished and enshrined here in the District of Columbia. is one that remarkably favors bureaucracy and institutions rather than children. This debate here today and the rule before us is about whether we are going to get serious about putting children first. putting children ahead of bureaucrats. making sure that the comfort of children and engaging in economic competitiveness and prosperity is more important than the economic comfort of the bureaucrats who run the worst school system in the entire country. I would suggest the following. Mr. Speaker. that. our goal and objective here in Washington with respect to the District of Columbia ought to. be to treat parents like real customers. to treat teachers like real professionals. to. in fact. liberate the education system here in the District of Columbia. to focus on the freedom to teach and the liberty to learn. That is what we are offering through this scholarship program. to empower parents to make the educational decisions for their children. not the bureaucrats who have left them behind for so long.
Date: 1998-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Madam Speaker. the Constitution of the United States in article 1. section 8. gives Congress the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district as may. by cession of particular States. and the acceptance of Congress. become the seat of the Government of the United States. And there are other sections in the Constitution as well that give the Congress the authority and. in fact. the obligation to be concerned about the children of the District of Columbia public schools. But it is more than just a constitutional authority. We have a moral obligation to treat these children like real Americans. It is interesting when we read the newspapers here in Washington about how voucher opponents send their own children to private schools. Now. these are people over here who understand the difference between bondage and liberty. John Milton. British poet. in the poem Samson Agonistes. said. "But what more often nations grown corrupt than to love bondage more than liberty. bondage with ease than strenuous liberty." Some people understand the difference between bondage and liberty and send their children to the schools of their choice. Let us treat children in the District of Columbia like. real Americans as well. so they might one day learn the difference between bondage and liberty.
Date: 1998-05-06
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. what can Congress do to break a stone wall? Many of the key witnesses In congressional investigations have either fled the country or taken the fifth amendment. Others have hidden behind phony claims of executive privilege. And if that is not enough. now we have Democrats on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee who refuse to grant immunity to four key witnesses. even their own Justice Department consents to the granting of immunity to those four key witnesses. What is Congress to do? Well. Congress can go to the courts and. thus. delay investigations for many more months. while listening to the White House and other defenders of this sleaze and obstruction to cry with Indignation that the investigation is takIng too long. Mr. Speaker. why is this story not being told? Why cannot everyone. Democrats and Republicans alike. agree that no one Is above the law and. that the American people have a right to truthful answers? Mr. Speaker. no amount of stonewalling should stand between the truth and the American people any longer.
Date: 1998-05-06
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr..Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. the purpose. of course. would be to engage the chairman of the full committee. my good friend from Richmond. Virginia. in a colloquy. I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Virginia for his work in moving this very important bill forward and his leadership on this issue over the past number of years. We can all agree that government should not be providing commercial services. especially in advanced telecommunications. We can likewise agree that the intergovernmental satellite organizations should be privatized in a manner that creates a level field for all competitors. Now. given that all these organizations are intergovernmental organizations. the United States must inevitably engage with our global partners as we move forward to privatization. We operate in a global interconnected world today. with a complex web of economic undertakings binding us to countries around the world. We all know that. For instance. the United States and approximately 100 other countries that participate in INTELSAT and Inmarsat are members of the World Trade Organization. the WTO. We. therefore. have obligations to these countries. as they do to us. pursuant to agreements in the WTO. With respect to satellite services. we have an obligation to our WTO partners under the Fourth Protocol of the General Agreement on Trade and Services. which governs basic telecommunications services. Now. I would like to ask the chairman. is the bill intended to be consistent with U.S. obligations under WTO on the provisions of the basic telecommunications services?
Date: 1998-05-06
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentlemans remarks. As the gentleman knows. I am very interested in seeing that the commission. when making its determination whether to license or authorize the use of privatized entities. act in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO agreement on basic telecommunications. Now. I would ask the gentleman one final question. Is this legislation intended to ensure that the FCC not only take notice but. as much as practicable. act in a manner consistent with the WTO agreement on basic telecommunication services?
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of FERC Project Number 9248 in the State of Colorado. and for other purposes.
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H

of -Colorado. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill presently under consideration.
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. under section 13 of the Federal Power Act. project construction must begin within 4 years of issuance of a license. If construction has not begun by that time. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. H.R. 2217 provides simply for the extension of this construction deadline of the San Miguel project. a 4.6 megawatt hydroelectric project in the State of Colorado. if the sponsor pursues the commencement of construction in good faith and with due diligence. These types of bills have not been controversial in the past. and I do not believe. from the other side of the aisle. that this will be. The bill does not change the license requirements in any way and it does not change environmental standards. but merely extends the construction deadlines. There is a need to act since the construction deadline for the project expired.in January of 1996 and FERC has terminated the license. Unless Congress acts. the town of Telluride will lose its investment in this project. and we do not want that to happen. H.R. 2217 would reinstate the license and extend the construction deadline by 6 years. According to the town of Telluride. the sponsor of the project. construction has not commenced because ofdelays in obtaining a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service. and a dredge and fill permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of that. Telluride lacks the power of sales for the contract. I feel very strongly that this is something that we have to proceed with. As I stated during the consideration of similar legislation that we have dealt with over a period of time. the lack of a power sales contract is the main reason for the construction of hydroelectric projects. and the fact that they have not been able to commence in a timely manner. It is very difficult for a hydroelectric project sponsor to secure financing until such time as they are granted a license and the construction deadline begins to run. Mr. Speaker. I. with cooperation from my good friend. the gentleman from Texas . we have worked on these things back and forth all the time. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to extend the time required for the construction of a hydroelectric project. as amended.
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2841. as amended.
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. -(Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Date: 1998-05-12
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. this legislation is very similar to the bill we just went through. so that my description is going to be very brief. Then I will yield to my good friend. the gentleman from Kentucky. Under section 13 of the Federal Power Act. project construction must begin within 4 years of the issuance of a license. We know that. If construction is not begun by that time. the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. again. cannot issue and cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. H.R. 2841 provides for extension of the construction deadline of the Melhahl project. a 35 megawatt hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky. if the sponsor pursues the commencement of construction in good faith and with due diligence. According to the City of Augusta. the project sponsor. construction has not commenced because of challenges from various competing applicants for this particular license. H.R. 2841 provides for up to three different consecutive 2year extensions. I think that this is something that we have to proceed with. in conferring with my good friend. the gentleman from Texas . I have to apologize for my voice. I have a little bit of laryngitis here today. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.