macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1998-06-25
Speaker: HARLEY DUNCAN (republican)
Chamber: S

Federation of Tax Administrators. Washington. DC. DEAR HARLEY: The Revenue Cabinet has gathered some information on the Fort Campbell issue of whether employees who live In Tennessee and work on the Kentucky side of the Fort Campbell installation receive any benefits from the state of Kentucky. The question of what services Kentucky provides is quite broad. I will attempt to itemize below what we have Investigated and the results. RoadsFort Campbell Is accessible from both the Kentucky side and the Tennessee side. Most workers enter the base at the gate nearest their work station. This means. for example. that most hospital workers enter on the Tennessee side (the hospital Is In Tennessee). and most school workers enter on the Kentucky side using Kentucky maintained roads (the school is In Kentucky). Water and Sewer Service--Self contained on the base. Electric Service--Most Is supplied directly tothe base by the Tennessee Valley Authority. One housing area. however. is supplied by the Pennyrile Electric Cooperative. a Kentucky based electric company. Cooperative Fire ProtectionLocal communities In both Kentucky and Tennessee have agreements with Fort Campbell to assist in the event of a major fire or other emergency. SchoolsThe school system on the Fort Campbell base is fully selfcontained and federally funded. It is limited to the children of active duty military personnel stationed at the military base. Police ProtectionAll police protection is selfcontained. Responsibility for Fort Campbell and all federal military bases rests with the federal/military police. Unemployment Benefits--Federal civilian workers who become unemployed can apply for benefits from the state where they work or the state where they live. If a Tennessee resident working in Kentucky becomes unemployed and applies In Tennessee. a transfer is made from the Kentucky fund to the Tennessee fund to pay that workers unemployment claim. The result is that wherever the claim Is filed. Kentucky funds pay the claim. I hope this information is helpful to you in your efforts concerning HR 1953. It Is our belief that the civilian employees who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell definitely receive some benefits from the state of Kentucky. The Kentucky Revenue Cabinet greatly appreciates the work FTA is doing on HR 1953. Harley. we cant thank you and your staff enough. If I can be of further assistance. please let me know. Sincerely. ALEx W. ROSE. Commissioner. Department of Law. Kentucky Revenue Cabinet.
Date: 1998-07-14
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I have had the pleasure to work with many Members who are legitimately concerned about campaign reform. I especially want to commend the gentleman from Connecticut
Date: 1998-07-15
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Madam Speaker. the real purpose of this bill is to protect children. born and unborn. Children of all races deserve to be protected. not preyed upon. And by the way. we know that most babies of teenagers are fathered by adult men who. yes. go into these areas. prey upon them and then the best they can do is just pay for the abortion. They should not be treated any different than any other little girl in our Nation. To allow this to go on. to allow them to go into these areas and prey on these little girls of any color is just wrong. So we would certainly agree that they should all be protected equally. but we would not agree on the way to get there. I am hearing today that families are excluded if it is a grandma or an aunt or an uncle or someone else in the family. There is nothing further from the truth. The reality is that every court. every State that has parental provisions constitutionally have to have a bypass. because the Constitution has been determined to allow abortion. Therefore. there has to be a simple. nonobstructive way of getting an abortion quickly outside of the parental involvement. So every State has a procedure. In fact. the average judicial bypass hearing lasts about 12 minutes. More than 92 percent of the hearings were less than 20 minutes. And the girl cannot. cannot under the State law. be put under an adversarial situation. or that is stopping her from having her rights. And it overturns that law. So what we have is the ability for a young girl who is pregnant to stay in the State. not to be moved to another State. away from family. away from parent. But in that State. she can go with an aunt. that grandma. that neighbor. that clergy. and there has to be a brief. quick process. I think it is important that we take a look at reality in these States. In the States that have it. in Massachusetts. we will find that every minor that sought judicial authorization received it. Every single one. Another Massachusetts study found that only one of 477 girls was refused or was even slowed down. So what we have is everybody is getting the bypass. But what it does is it makes this little girl that is afraid to go talk to mom or dad. where she has a pretty good family. and who wants to tell morn or dad something is wrong. take a breath and go. well. maybe they are not that bad after all. We need to slow this down. Because it is awfully easy for that adult man to prey on that little girl. to take that little girl across State lines. or the parent or the relative that is involved or knows about this to want to cover it up. But we should not cover it up. We should help these girls and keep it in the light of day and make sure that they have their rights. as children. protected.
Date: 1998-07-15
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today to join in this colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury. Postal Service. and General Government. as well as my friend and colleague. the gentleman from Texas . The 13 that died from heroin that the gentleman discussed came from Plano. which is the area that I represent. and the drug seizure at DallasFort Worth Airport which was $11.7 million in heroin. amounts to only 2 percent of what goes through there in their estimation. They do not have the resources to address the problem. and that is why we are requesting the gentlemans help in securing the necessary funds to designate north Texas as a highintensity drug area. Providing funds will give local law enforcement the necessary resources to fight the war on drugs. The gentleman knows what our position in Texas is relevant to the country of Mexico. and therefore. I think that the gentleman understands that our Dallasnorth Texas area has become a funnel for that process. and Barry McCaffrey. as he indicated. does agree and informs us that he supports our efforts. The Senate has already earmarked $5 million for the creation of HIDTA in northeast Texas. and we hope that the gentleman will continue to work with us and support the Senate language in conference. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Arizona and I have had a discussion previously. and the gentleman indicated that perhaps the dollars were not there. but in conference. perhaps the gentleman and the Senate can find them. Parents and children of north Texas need this help. and we are really fighting a war there. and we need the essential weapon of the HIDTA in the Dallas area. I know for the people of our area that the gentleman will help us. We just cannot afford to lose one more child to the ravages of drugs. I thank the gentleman for allowing us to discuss it with the gentleman this evening.
Date: 1998-07-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. last year Republicans passed the first tax relief bill in 16 years. Did Members know that even after that. the tax burden on American workers is still nearly 40 percent? Americans ought to be enraged over that. and I am. Just yesterday we find out. after a fourth revision. that we now have a surplus of $580 billion over 5 years. It is only right we return some of that money back to hardworking Americans. After all. it came right out of their back pocket. Mr. Speaker. the President and some of the Senate are balking at returning this money to its rightful owners. American citizens. As part of our balanced budget and protection of Social Security. the House voted to give $100 billion in tax relief. which equals only one penny on the dollar. Americans want. need. and deserve tax relief. and I think surely we can find one penny on the dollar to give back to hardworking citizens in this country.
Date: 1998-07-16
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I do reluctantly speak against the rule. but I found out late last night that an amendment that I think helps us keep our word was ruled out of order. and. had I had enough time and understood what was happening this morning. I certainly would have talked to our leadership about it. I do not like to speak against rules because I know it is so hard to come up with a bill that is good. and there is a lot of good things in this bill. But a couple of months ago we started a process that was very disturbing. and we started it on the transportation budget. What we decided to do was use an excuse to cut veterans health care. Now this was a bipartisan decision. It started with the President. and he decided we take a bg cut into veterans health care benefits and say. if someone ever started smoking when they were in the military. that they would not be covered. Well. that really was not the issue. They just wanted an excuse to cut veterans health care. Well. Mr. Speaker. they did such a poor job when they hung it into the transportation bill. see. because they wanted the $10 billion plus to spend on their transportation projects. -that it was done so poorly they had to redraft it and hang it on the IRS reform bill to make sure that they got these veterans health care cuts in. Now everybody went home on the Fourth and promised if they could fix it. they would fix it. but it was in a bigger bill. and that bigger bill they just needed to vote for. transportation was so important. So. if they had been able to. they certainly would fix it. Now today we are after another vote. the IRS reform vote. Not only did they not fix it. as many people said they would do as they traveled around the Nation. but they confirmed it in. again. a rider. something put on in a conference that they are not real proud about doing out front. and. yes. this was bipartisan. conferences are bipartisan. Both the Democrats and Republicans went behind closed doors and negotiated and decided that they were going to again confirm a cut in veterans health care. Now some say. well. it is just fair. If someone started smoking in the military. they should not get health care later in life. Now that is a different issue. if that were the only issue. but it is not the only issue. The real issue is it went to the bottom line.of the veterans budget. and they cut money out. Now the veterans of the Vietnam war is growing. and Democrats and Republicans alike. and the President. can deny that people that fought in the Vietnam war are aging. Second World War. We can pretend their health care goes away. but it does not. and we made a commitment in this country to those men and women that fought for our country. Now today we stand here again. and this bill could have fixed it. and this bill does not fix it. So vote against the rule.
Date: 1998-07-17
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman. in conclusion. I think this is a hard issue for a lot of people. It is hard to know how to keep our commitment. But one thing we can be sure of. if we take $15 billion out of veterans health care over 5 years. and the VA health care budget is only $17 billion a year. we cannot keep our commitment. This is a DemocratRepublican problem. The President started it. He even recommended we do it. They got to the days of the transportation budget and just did nothave enough money for all those roads that go nowhere. So. all of a sudden. both parties and the President made a decision that veterans do not have a loud enough voice. Today. let us think about the veterans. Let us say it is not honorable to go forward with this and let us take it back. fix it. and bring it forward. There is a lot of good things and a lot of good effort in this bill. but let us defeat it. bring it back next week. and take the veterans health care cut out of it. Mr. Chairman. I am submitting for the RECORD an urgent appeal from the Vietnam Veterans of America regarding this bill.
Date: 1998-07-20
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to go out of order. notwithstanding the order of the House agreed to on Friday last. and combine amendments listed as 40 to 45 into one. and make it as the next thing in order after the Calvert amendment. and that debate be limited to five minutes for and five minutes against the amendment.
Date: 1998-07-20
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. this actually is a group of amendments. all dealing with grassroot organizations concerns. From liberal groups to conservative groups. they have been very. very concerned about their voter guides. To begin with. it starts with clarifying some things that were never intended in the bill anyway." There was never an intention to restrict voter guides or individual grassroots lobbying. and yet some felt that this bill went across the line. To begin with. they wanted to be able to say. even if one guy is running. we want to be able to put out a record on him. We believe we should be able to do that. So they have graciously said. sure enough. that makes some sense. and so we will allow one. The original said there had to be two or more candidates to be able to put out a voter guide. so this is a step in the right direction. The second thing that is very much a concern of the groups is that they cannot explain why they were for or against an issue. Now. the makers of the bill felt that they had taken care of this. but many groups did not. So this simply clarifies that they not only are able to. but it clarifies that they can explain their positions and cleans up that problem. Another issue that they were concerned about is that possibly collecting information to build score cards might be -considered coordination. These amendments make it clear that that is not the case. There are some other things that were of concern of the groups. and they were worried that their grassroots lobbyists could be in trouble. that this could be a problem if they were lobbying elected officials on issues. and that that could qualify as coordination. This language says no. that was not meant to be considered as coordination. so it cleans that up. and so there is no problem with the grassroots groups lobbying now. Then there was a section that was a little more difficult. that has a purpose. a very important purpose. and that is where one finds that there are coordinated efforts of groups. vendors. and actually it comes out in kind of ugly things. One finds TV ads and radio ads and all kinds of things happening. and it is supposed to be independent but it clearly is coordinated. What this does is clarify that and makes it very clear that it is not meant to deal with voter guides. that we are making it real clear that voter guides are not a part of the problem. and so again. we have made it very clear in this amendment that we are not aiming at them and definitely not even trying to get close to them. So with that. this clears up a lot of the problems with the voter guides. it clears up a lot of the problems that the grassroots groups had with being able to lobby and being restricted from their lobbying and goes a long ways. I would think. to alleviating some of their fears. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1998-07-20
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his comments. This particular area of campaign finance reform probably has had more objections. more confusion. than anything I have seen in my nearly 4 years in Congress. I do not think that this agreement or this amendment is going to make everyone happy but those that used to say we cannot even advocate our position of what we think is right in the voter guide. to them this is taking care of it. To those that do not want people to have any speech about what they think is a good position from their perspective. a group. to them they are not going to necessarily like it either.
Date: 1998-07-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Madam Speaker. I rise in strong support of this resolution. We do not have a normalized trade relationship with China even if it is written on paper. We must not isolate China. Actually. we need to continue to reach out and build a strong relationship with China. But we cannot reach out and close our eyes and our conscience at the same time and be the America that I grew up in. I agree with labor on this. Last year. the United States racked up a merchandise trade deficit. a real trade deficit of $50 billion. It was $40 billion the year before. But look back a little bit. In 1980. we did not have a trade deficit with China. You see. China is enjoying this new global. economy. but they are not acting normal. We can change the words to "normal trade" from "mostfavored nation status." but it still is not true that it is going to happen. It is obviously on paper. In Washington State. China today blocks all the wheat. most all of the apples. We hope it will be a market someday. but it is not. We can say it is a market. and it is our biggest market. but if they do not accept our goods. it is not a market. In the aerospace industry. China is forcing local investment and production at the expense of U.S. jobs. It is as simple as that. They require the technology be transferred and most of the planes be built. and they are building their own planes now. In fact. they plan on having their own production. their own companies run by the Red Army in the near future. What kind of assurance does that give the workers in my State that they will even have a job in 10 years? Not much. I think that when we turn to our conscience. we have to decide if America does care about -freedom around the world or if the almighty dollar is more important than that. I think that we have to start thinking about the conscience of America. because if America loses its conscience. who is America? I know we are standing here and a lot of us are thinking about the big- international corporations. Our districts are going to be really mad if the international market is not left open so they can continue to move their production. But I want to start you thinking. Hewlett Packard in our State moved 1.000 jobs mostly to China 2 months ago. Those people we are trying to find service jobs for. sales jobs for. but there is no production. How much of that can we have before the families go home. and there is nobody. home when the kids go home because mom and dad are both working two jobs? This is very serious. folks. It goes right to the heart and conscience of America. Let us back up -and say no today. But let us reach out and say let us have trade with a conscience. a strong conscience. and that is what America is all about.
Date: 1998-07-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker. I stand today in support of House Joint Resolution 511. This is a rule providing. as we all know. for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 629. the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act. This important legislation. of course. would grant the consent of Congress to the States of Texas. Maine. and Vermont to enter into a compact for the disposal of lowlevel. lowlevel radioactive waste. I might say that nine other States have already done this. This would be the 10th State to do it. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of this report. This is necessary for the House to consider a clean. clean compact bill as the conferees have recommended. During the consideration in the House. an amendment was adopted which restricts the Texas compact to accept waste solely from Texas. Maine. and Vermont. Now. this language was accepted on one condition. That is that we have a chance to consult with the Governors of the three affected States regarding its impact on the ability to implement the compact. The consultations were emphatic. All three Governors. all three Governors. opposed the amendment adopted by the House. The opposition was not limited to these three States. The National Governors Association. the Western Governors Association. the National Conference of State Legislators all contacted us in opposition to the Housepassed language. The Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Policy. Act passed by Congress in 1980. 1980. provided the States with great latitude in implementing its requirements. It was not the intention of Congress to create a prescriptive idea for the States to adopt. In considering H.R. 629. the States have reminded us of this fact. The action to eliminate the provision which requires us to seek this rule is a necessary one to preserve the flexibility of the States. And I say to the States. we want States rights in implementing not only the Texas compact but the administration of the entire compact system. All eight conferees. both Republicans and Democrats. House and Senate. agreed that this was a proper course of action. The States of Texas. Maine. and Vermont have fulfilled their responsibilities. They have negotiated a disposal contract between themselves and have presented it to Congress for our consent. This is a very good rule. It will allow the House to do the right thing for the States of Texas. Maine. and Vermont. Mr. Speaker. I urge support for the rule.
Date: 1998-07-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 511. I call up the conference report on the bill to grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.
Date: 1998-07-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I want to get this straight. I will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from Texas will control 20 minutes. and the gentleman from Texas will control 20 minutes of which I think he is going to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 1998-07-29
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 on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.