macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1998-06-17
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. is it not interesting that the investigations that are taking place where we have individuals who are refusing to testify unless they are granted immunity are being prevented from telling their story here in Congress by those who know that there is a story to be exposed. that there is something to be shown by exposing the light of truth upon these terrible allegations that the gentleman referred to. And like the gentleman. I am hopeful that there is no foundation to these allegations. But the gentleman is absolutely right when we see the continual stories that are being uncovered by the press. by the media. that are being admitted to by the White House and other places. that these same individuals who are trying to constrain the rights of individuals in America. free American citizens to speak freely at election time and participate in the election process. are also the same ones who are willing to build a stonewall. to do nothing in the face of the allegations that are very serious that seem to suggest just in terms of the timeliness of waivers being signed on U.S. satellite and targeting technology making its way to the Chinese military government. at the same time as these contributions made their way to the ClintonGore campaign. that these allegations should not go investigated. That is the position of our opponents on the other side. over on the Democrat side. They would love to stall these investigations. They would love to prevent us in the Republican Party and the Republican majority from moving forward on creating laws that would prevent those kinds of occasions to occur. or even the suggestion of those events to occur again. Instead. their answer is to constrain the participation of freedomloving Americans. It is just appalling. But that is the debate that is before us. That is what is here for us to win or to lose if we are not tenacious enough to stand our ground and to win this debate and to keep coming back night after night after night and talk about the real scandals that have been alleged over in the White House and the real opportunities before us here on the floor of this Chamber to construct a campaign finance law that really does restore integrity and encourages more full participation in the political process by average rank and file Americans.
Date: 1998-06-17
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I want to go back to this chart that thegentleman from California who joined us earlier let us in on. This is a quote from the Democrat leader. the floor leader for the Democrat Party here on the House floor on the notion of campaign finance reform back in February. This was reported in Time Magazine on February 3rd. and the quote is as follows: "What we have is two important values in direct conflict: Freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You cant have both." What are they talking about? Freedom of speech refers to the desire by the left wing of the United States Congress to impdse laws under their sick version of campaign finance. which restricts the ability of free citizens. American citizens. business owners. school teachers. union Members. to speak freely and contribute as much as they want to the political process. whether it Is cash or whether it is any other activity. Usually it is cash that they are talking about. those folks who think that we ought to place a cap on what somebody can contribute and participate in the political process. and the second part of this. our desire for healthy campaigns. Well. we know from the Democrat side of the aisle what constitutes healthy campaigns for them is suppressing the ability of entrepreneurs. of capitalists. of business owners. of hardworking Americans to participate to the fullest extent in the political process and instead. allow for labor union bosses. for political operatives. sometimes from other countries in the case of the previous example from China. to participate to whatever extent they want. and to go unimpeded. to go unimpeded by the Paycheck Protection Act. which guarantees voluntary political contributions. to go unimpeded by a serious level of investigation here in the United States Congress as to whether Chinese campaign contributions have contributed to the signing of waivers that allowed U.S. targeting and satellite technology to make its way into the hands of Chinese Communist military leaders. Those folks have no restrictions under the Democrat ideas. Only freedomloving Americans. rank and file citizens. taxpaying citizens. those are the individuals that they would propose to constrict the free speech. Well. those are interesting ideas. They are awful ideas. if someone asks me. but nonetheless they are important to raise here on the House floor because they do draw a distinction in the vast difference. the huge conflicted vision of what freedom and liberty means in America.. their vision of repression for American citizens. restriction on the ability to speak freely and our vision of full and honest and open political participation by Americans. by American citizens. by individuals who have earned the right under the status of citizenship to participate fully in the political process. and I am sorry if that does not involve Communist Chinese military leaders. or that does not involve union bosses stealing cash from unsuspecting wageearners.
Date: 1998-06-17
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for joining me tonight. The others that were here. the gentleman from Texas. the gentleman from Arkansas. and the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker. thank you for indulging the freshman class. We will be back one week from tonight.
Date: 1998-06-18
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. yesterday President Clinton. in a letter to Speaker GINGRICH. wrote that the legislation creating education savings accounts. which we will consider today. would weaken public education and shortchange our children. That charge is preposterous. I would like one Democrat to explain why giving parents more control and more power over their childrens education would not be good for their children. I would like one Democrat on the other side to explain how more competition would result in worse schools. I would like one Democrat to look in the eyes of children in dangerous or dysfunctional schools and explain why they would want to keep them there. I would like one Democrat to explain why they would sell out American children. once again. to the education special interests who block every real reform that comes to this body. and who are the ones who are shortchanging our children. Today. let us vote for the children. Let us support education savings accounts.
Date: 1998-06-18
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. last year the President signed with great fanfare the Taxpayer Relief Act. which allowed parents to invest up to $500 of their own money in education savings accounts to help send their kids to the college of their choice. Now we are asking the President to give these same parents the ability to use that same money for elementary
Date: 1998-06-18
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. according to this administration. the Presidents trip to China next week marks a new high in U.S.-China relations. I am not sure that is true. The national security of this Nation is at serious risk today due to actions taken by this President and his administration regarding missile technology transfers. It is not a reason for celebration. It is not a high point. The transfer of U.S. missile technology to China. with the direct approval of the Clinton administration. raises some rather significant questions: One. why the authority over the waiver program was shifted from State to Commerce. two. why an American company was granted a second launch waiver when it was already being investigated by the Justice Department. three. why the Clinton administration tried to shield China from sanctions. and finally. what military benefit did China gain as a result of that technology transfer? Mr. Speaker. today we have the opportunity to set up a committee that will search for the honest answers. and I think the honest answers are going to be forthcoming. We have a minority leader and our own majority chairman that are going to get the answers. for our national security is not a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to demand the truth and support this resolution today.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. House Joint Resolution 113 was introduced by the gentlewoman from Maryland who is to be congratulated for working very hard to get this to the floor today. Mr. Speaker. House Joint Resolution 113 would approve the establishment of a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr.. at a site located in Area 1 in the District of Columbia. The Department of the Interior. in consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts. will select the final site and approve the design. As per the Commemorative Works Act. this recommendation must be approved by law no later than 150 days from the date of the Secretarys notification. Mr. Speaker. Congress passed legislation in 1996 to authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. This fraternity. which Dr. King joined in 1952. is one of the oldest predominantly AfricanAmerican fraternities in the Nation. They will secure all of the money to build this memorial to Dr. King through private contributions. The fraternity wishes to honor Dr. Kings remarkable role with a memorial in the Nations capital. This memorial will provide a tangible recognition that will assist in passing Dr. Kings message of liberty and justice for all from generation to generation. Mr. Speaker. this is a welldeserved and completely bipartisan measure that is also supported by the administration. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 113. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise .and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution just passed.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to provide for a land exchange* involving the Cape Cod National Seashore and to extend the authority for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission. as amended.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. H.R. 2411 is a bill introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts . The gentleman from Massachusetts is to be commended on a bill which successfully resolves an environmentally sensitive issue and will benefit the people of Massachusetts. H.R. 2411 provides for a land exchange and minor boundary adjustment to the Cape Code National Seashore consistent.with requirements of the omnibus parks bill enacted last year. It conveys to Provincetown. Massachusetts. 7.6 acres of Federal land in exchange for approximately 11.2 acres of land outside the park. and modifies the park boundary to include the added land. In addition. the bill extends the statutory term of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission by 10 years to September 2008. The Commission has provided valuable guidance to the Park Service and given local officials and community members a voice in the management of the Seashore. This bill is noncontroversial and is supported by the administration. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2411. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2411. the bill just passed.
Date: 1998-06-22
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I thank both gentlemen. and I particularly thank both gentlemen for their long service here in the Congress.
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. we are going to begin a colloquy talking about the tobacco issue. First of all I would like to say that every year since I have been in Congress. I have introduced an amendment. or cosponsored an amendment. to get rid of subsidy for the Risk Management Agency. the crop insurance section. and the net cost of this. of this program. Each year we have lost by a scratch. This year as we went into working on the agriculture bill. we also have another bill which is the tobacco bill coming up. As we have worked on that. none of the objections that I have had have lessened. But it appears that the leadership now has agreed that there will be no cost to taxpayers. They will eliminate all cost to taxpayers of this particular program in the tobacco bill which the Speaker of the House will be introducing in just a few weeks. I would like to have confirmation of that.
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I want to ask one question to clarify what she just said. She is saying that the tobacco legislation will eliminate any taxpayer support for this program.
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. in conclusion I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her leadership and the assurance that the taxpayers will no longer pay this. and I will pull my amendment.
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak in favor of this amendment. I think we need to go back to what the role of the .Food and Drug Administration is. and that is the role of ensuring public safety and health. and that is by approving medically necessary drugs and devices. as well as ensuring food safety. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma is consistent with the mission of the FDA and simply bans funding for the testing. development or approval of any drug which causes a chemical abortion. You see. womens health is really at stake. New evidence has indicated that abortions increase the chances of breast cancer. Presently breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer among middleaged women. If protecting all members of society is the goal of the FDA. certainly we need to study this link exhaustively before we approve any drug that causes a chemical abortion. Make no mistake. the morning after pill which the FDA approved is not a contraceptive. It is an abortifacient. meaning it causes a chemical abortion. In my home state of Washington. for example. pharmacists are permitted to dispense the "morning after" pill without a doctors prescription. A doctor gives the general prescription to the pharmacist. the pharmacist interviews the woman. and then he decides or she decides whether or not the woman is eligible for this abortion. The protection of the doctor is then removed and the ramifications of the womans health. whether physical or emotional. are not even discussed. Additionally. our taxpayer dollarsshould not be used for the FDA to implement the abortion drug RU486. The longterm effects of this abortive are still unknown. In U.S. clinical trials. four women nearly bled to death and required blood transfusions. Many women bled profusely and required hospitalization. and 68 percent of the women experienced such severe pain that medication was required. It is unacceptable for the Federal Government through the vehicle of the FDA to promote a drug whose sole purpose is to destroy the life of another human being. I think the goal of most lawmakers. whether Republican or Democrat. is to find alternatives to abortion. But with the increased accessibility of these abortion pills. unwanted pregnancies become the medical equivalent of a simple headache. Just pop a pill. and your problems all will go away. I- our State it is as easy as calling the hot line number which appeared in my State paper. 1888NOT2LATE. Mr. Chairman. in an age of increased personal responsibility. this is not a signal to be advertising to American women. It is not a signal to be advertising to American youth. The job of the FDA is to protect and promote the health of all citizens. That includes the health of unborn children of America. The funds in -the agriculture appropriation bill should not be used by the FDA to test. develop or approve any drug which substitutes abortives for selfdiscipline. causing abortions. Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma .
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. the failures that are exposed through choice. whether it is school choice or the choice of restaurants as in the case of the New York example. does not mean that the opportunity leaves. that there is. not an eating establishment at that old restaurant or that the opportunity to learn will leave the neighborhood. What we mean when we talk about bad "schools being exposed and sometimes closing usually means that we have a changeover of management. That the old management is fired and a new team is brought in to try to meet the need of a neighborhood or a community. The need for education cer-. tainly does not go away. As we know in the United States. whenever there is a high need for some service or some commodity. there is an entrepreneur waiting in the wings to fill it and to meet that need or provide that service. I believe that the same is true in education. We really have not even broken the surface on unleashing the entrepreneurial instincts of teachers in America. They really have been suppressed by this mechanized union mentality that says if a student grows up in neighborhood or lives in neighborhood. that they are assigned to attend school which is in the neighborhood. Or if they move to another neighborhood. that they go to the school that is associated.with that neighborhood. That is the- model that we have today where nobody chooses. where nobody selects the curriculum they want. the management style they would prefer. or even some of the other ancillary benefits of a particular school site. But I believe that if we are able to get beyond that. if we of able to allow teachers to compete on a professional basis. that we will see education in this country turn around and thrive like we can not even imagine today. Again. we have a tremendous need in our Nation for a strong system of quality public education. Appealing to the entrepreneurial instincts of education professionals in my mind is the way to meet that demand. Those demands exist especially in inner city areas and poor neighborhoods where some believe that school choice will leave those children abandoned. I say that is nonsense. I think those are the areas where we will see the greatest challenge and I think we will see some of the best teachers moving into those particular opportunities to serve communities and to teacher. So I am like the gentleman from Florida. I think those of us who I believe truly have a passion for improving public education. we do not look to the free market as a way to suppress educational growth and educational excellence. We look to free markets as a way to help schools thrive.
Date: 1998-06-24
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for joining me. My parents are teachers as well. retired. My father spent his whole career teaching in the Cincinnati public school system. My mother. as well. finished her career working in the Cincinnati public school system. This issue tonight was raised because of the volume of letters. I just grabbed the six or seven that were on the top of the pile before I headed over here today. I did not really check to see what was in them. It was remarkable how similar they are in their criticism. But these letters are also long on suggestions as well. opportunities for improvement. commendations. too. There are plenty of teachers who view themselves as professionals. who communicate with me. with the gentleman. and with other Members of the Congress. and I encourage them to continue to 1o more of the same. I am confident in saying that they are not well represented. professional teachers. that is. not well represented by this teachers union that we mentioned earlier. The interests of the union are very. very different than the motivations of real professional teachers who care about children. This union is a large insurance conglomerate. for example. They profit handsomely from selling professional liability insurance policies to teachers. That is the reason many teachers joined the national union in the first place. This particular union has the ability to offer a product that is lower in cost because of the volume in which they deal. So they offer lowcost professional liability insurance. Many teachers believe that they need to purchase that insurance from the union in order to teach in a classroom. That is not really the case. I find that. just walking classroom to classroom in public schools in my district. as I frequently do. or when teachers show up at my town meetings. or there are several that live in my neighborhood as well. when they stop by. their attitudes and opinions and beliefs about where we need to go with education reform is very different than the union. I ask them. well. why are you sending your money to Washington. D.C.? It is something like $400 a year or something along those. lines just for the Federal dues. That is not- even the local regiment of this national union that exists at the State and local level. You pay additional dues for those folks. I ask them why they pay. why they keep forking over all the hundreds of dollars every year. which amounts to