macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased that this was brought to the floor by the gentleman from Oklahoma in that I think it clarifies something. This debate is needed. It appears that we all agree to appropriate family planning. But it is clear. very clear. that we do not agree that abortion should be birth control. We have heard over and over again that money cannot be used for abortions. so why have this debate? Why clarify it? But I say the very debate means that we need to clarify it. we need to stand today and say that wewill reflect the American peoples values. Every policy shows that they do not want their money to fund or facilitate abortions in America. Why should they want their money to fund or facilitate abortions in foreign countries? This reflects the values of Americans. To be told that we should be worried about a money bill. a spending bill. and that money is more important than principles and values. does not reflect Americas values.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to second what my colleague in the Texas legislature and here. the gentleman from Texas
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. H.R. 629. the Texas LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act. would grant the consent of Congress- to the lowlevel radioactive waste disposal agreement reached between the States of Texas. Maine. and Vermont. When Congress passed the Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Policy Act in 1980. it was a part of a broader agreement whereby the States are responsible for the disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste while the Federal Government is responsible for highlevel waste disposal. Since the 1980 act was passed. 41 States. as has been stated before. have received the consent of Congress for. disposal - compacts. Lowlevel radioactive waste includes a host of materials. from medical isotopes. to university research wastes. to the industrial - H8516 waste generated at nuclear power plants. The vast majority of these wastes do not even require the use of special containers to protect against threats to human health. In most cases. the radioactivity in these materials will decay to the point where there is no significant risk to human health after about 100 years. With the decision to put lowlevel waste responsibilities at the State level. the obligations of the Federal Government are fairly limited. Clearly and certainly. it is our responsibility to ensure that the compacts comply with the Federal Lowlevel Waste Act. During our consideration of H.R. 629 in the Committee on Commerce. it was clear that the compact meets this test. The State legislatures and Governors of Texas. Maine. and Vermont have met their obligation under the Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Policy Act. It is now our responsibility to support the States in this decision. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and certainly the gentleman from Ohio . ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. the sponsors of this legislation. for their very strong leadership and capable effort in moving the bill to this point. I strongly support H.R. 629 and encourage its adoption by the full House.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out that this property is Stateowned property. We had a big discussion about that when I was in the State legislature. I know that the gentleman from Texas remembers that. And it was picked because of its location and because it was Stateowned. Mr. Chairman. after 30 years. 85 percent of the waste is nonradioactive. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about lowlevel waste. We are not talking about highlevel waste. The specific site is limited to 30 years. this place. And I would say to the gentleman from Texas that at that location it takes 20.000 to 40.000 years for anything to seep down to the Rio Grande. Also. I would ask the question about my colleague from California who has a compact but does not want this one. His State has got a compact with North Dakota. South Dakota. and Arizona. The gentleman had a big. long line that said transportation is a big problem. Guess what? California has not gotten their site ready yet. so where are they sending their waste? South Carolina. all the way across the country. If transportation is a problem. then California has got it. Mr. Chairman. I would tell my colleagues. transportation is not a problem. Transportation has an excellent safety -record for transportation of commercial lowlevel waste. During the last 20 years. there have only been four minor accidents and never been a radiologically related injury or death associated with a transportation accident of such waste. For the past 20 years. they have been transporting this waste to South Carolina. Licensing. inspection. and enforcement regulations from the Federal Government ensure that transportation requirements are met. All waste coming into Texas is going to be dry. solid form. and they are going to have a tracking system to track the waste from the source of generation through disposal. accounting accurately for each part of it. So I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas . if he does not want Texas to have a compact. then any State can ship waste to Texas.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I will just remind the committee that this. after study. passed not only the subcommittee but the full committee by unanimous vote. voice vote. and I would ask support of the bill.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read. printed in the RECORD. and open to amendment at any point.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. one quick point. In nine previous compacts that we have approved in Congress. in nine of them. we have never altered the language that has been approved by the States. and I do not think we should be altering the language that has been approved by the States now.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I feel very stronglythat this amendment is not germane to the bill. and that we are simply giving States the right to enter into these compacts. We are not asking them anyplace in the bill how transportation is going to be decided or anything else. Under rule 16. the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. and we are not talking in the bill about transportation. So I must insist on my point of order and ask for a ruling of the Chair.
Date: 1997-10-07
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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 629. the bill just passed.
Date: 1997-10-07
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I stand tonight as- a strong supporter of this bill. and I stand against the amendment. not because of the intender. I think that his intentions are good. but I can find nowhere in the Constitution that we would give the power to the Secretary of State over our lands. As my colleagues can see. article IV. section 3. of the Constitution says. "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." International designations. such as World Heritage Sites. Biosphere Reserves. and others occur without congressional input or approval and are in direct conflict with article IV. section Unfortunately these designations usually occur without the input of local citizens. and quite often they are not even aware that they happen until something hapl~us to them. like they lose their local property rights or the use of their property. Everyone here should be concerned about these designations and should support the bill. H.R. 901. because what it does. it stands up for local property owners. but it also says the Congress is responsible to the people. We are elected. And the reason I stand against this amendment is. the Secretary of State is not. the Secretary of State is appointed. It is not unreasonable to ask that these nominations be made in the light of day. they be confirmed by the peoples body. and that we protect the sovereignty of America. I would ask that my colleagues consider very strongly voting against this amendment but also for the final bill. It passed strong before with a 246 to 178 vote. and I think it will again tonight if we know our Constitution.
Date: 1997-10-09
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. yesterday 158 colleagues joined me in a bill that I introduced called the Paycheck Protection Act. This legislation was introduced to address a problem that occurs throughout the country and is a shame when we begin to think about it. It is a problem that not many people know about. except those individuals who are hardworking wage earners throughout the country who happen to belong to labor unions. Mr. Speaker. what labor unions are able to do in America today is skim off a portion of workers union dues and put that cash toward political purposes to support candidates which the wage earner may. in fact. not support. and they do this without securing the consent of the worker who earns the cash in the first place. Mr. Speaker. that is what the Paycheck Protection Act is all about and designed to help. those hard workers throughout the country who are union members who believe they ought to have some say in where their political cash goes. which kind of candidates they might decide to support. and which kinds of political causes they identify with. Mr. Speaker. it is an interesting battle that is about to begin here in Congress over the Paycheck Protection Act. This is an issue that divides the labor bosses from the rankandfile union members. The Republican party stands firmly behind rankandfile union workers. and we hope to get this legislation passed.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Madam Speaker. the American people were treated to quite a spectacle last week. Year after year. we have heard complaints from citizens about heavyhanded tactics of the IRS. gross abuse of power and politically motivated tax audits. Finally. we are treated to a public hearing of these accusations. The only surprise is that things are even worse than wethought. IRS stories are nothing new. I worked in this field for 15 years preparing tax returns. I had to live through many of these horrors with families. Everyone has got one. someone who has had their whole life turned upside down by an IRS agent who cannot tell the difference between a tax cheat. the little guy who has made an honest mistake. and an ordinary citizen trying as best they can to comply with an incredibly complicated Tax Code that even IRS experts. from my experience. do not understand. We need to clean up the system and simplify it.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. has anyone noticed that the President will endorse any education initiative as long as it supports big government. like Goals 2000? Like national testing? This is the same President that threatens to veto any program that increases parental control over a childs education. Mr. Speaker. look at this administrations track record. They opposed education block grants to States. they oppose vouchers for the poorest. poorest 2.000 children. and now they oppose this bill. which gives parents the ability to invest up to $2.500 a year in their childs education so that they can attend the safqst and most academically challenging school available. Why is the President against parents sending their children to the school of their choice? Surely he cannot believe that Washington bureaucrats are smarter than parents. And I hope it is not because he is so politically indebted to the special interests in Washington. like the National Education Association for instance. that he can no longer see what is best for Americas kids. Well. whatever the reason. Mr. Speaker. this President is wrong to oppose this bill. This bill will not only strengthen our childrens future by giving the parents a tool to make sure their children can attend a school that meets their needs. needs only a parent can determine. No one can seriously argue that there is anything wrong with giving parents. grandparents. and friends the power to invest in a childs education. Americas future depends on our children. and we ought to provide those parents with whatever they need to make sure that their children are the most educated. productive. and successful in the world. Mr. Speaker. I would to urge the President to join us as we try to help parents help their children. I urge all of my colleagues here in the House to do the same. Vote for this bill. Give our children a chance to grow up to be great Americans.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor. I have listened to the debate here and think that sometimes you just have to go back to the original bill to remember what it is because we lose track in the debate. The education savings account for public and private schools allows parents and grandparents like me to open an account for each of my grandchilds education that can be used only. only the interest. the principal I still pay taxes on. but the interest can be used for a childs education needs while they are in school. for private school. just the interest. if their parents should choose. and from kindergarten through college. The $2.500 a year that I would put in each of the childrens accounts as a grandparent. allowed under this bill. can be put in until they are 18 years old. If I take the money out that is now being used in our economy because savings is good for our economy. I have to pay a penalty on that. There is a great incentive for me to save for my grandchildrens education. not as great an incentive as an IRA where you can deduct the base $2.500 from your taxes. but a great incentive because I can save interest free for my grandchildren. As long as they spend the interest on college education. no one pays tax on the interest. This is not an attack on anything. It is a way of families getting involved in. their kids education. The great part about it is we know by all research families involved in their education gives the best education for children. Moms and grandmas making the choices gives the child the most personal education. I also wanted to say that as a grandma. I look at what is ahead for my grandkids. I do not want them to have to choose a public opportunity only. They might want to choose a private college. But if they do choose a public college. I would like to have them have options. With this. I want to encourage Members to look back at the bill and realize. this is a very good step toward reform and grandparents in America will like it.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I am grateful that the gentleman is raising this issue of national testing and the Clinton administrations effort to try to centralize testing here in Washington. D.C. and in fact erode the ability of States and local communities to determine quality on their own terms and their own standards. I hope people will think of this national testing debate in those terms. because we are not opposed to establishing a national quality standard for measurement of education. We are very much in favor of that. The question on national testing. as the Clinton administration proposes. is one of independence. which we do enjoy today. Independent national testing is a good thing. private organizations. private associations. private panels. private boards that are independent of the government measuring quality throughout the country. That gives us a better idea of how schools in Michigan compare to schools in Colorado that compare to schools in California and so on. But what the Clinton administration is talking about is something entirely different. And what they are suggesting is that independent measures of quality should be pushed aside. that we should forget about independent measures of quality and instead go to the Clinton model of government defining quality of education for the American people.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

The gentleman is absolutely correct. I try to characterize my education goals and those of the Republican Congress in the following ways. First. we focus on treating parents like real customers. Secondly. we focus on treating teachers like real professionals. The third thing we talk about is the liberty to learn. And then fourth. the freedom to teach. Let me talk about the one we are addressing at the moment.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

The gentleman is precisely right when he stated before that in Colorado. as in any State. that it is the local teachers. the local principals. the local school board members and state legislators and parents. I do not want to leave out parents certainly. but those are the individuals that have the best ideas on what kind of reform needs to take place in order to improve the quality of education for their children. National testing really places a damper on education improvement. I will tell my colleagues why. It goes back to the comment I made earlier about allowing the government to take over the role of defining quality. When we talk about liberty to learn as a Republican majority in Congress and our approach to reforming schools. what we are really speaking about is creating an education marketplace where intellectual ideas are free to be used and picked up or left behind by those who have different ideas about which educational setting is in the best interests of their children. When we talk about the exchange of ideas. when we talk about the creatiofi of economic opportunity through learning. in an education marketplace it means that you or I as parents have the opportunity to pick the school that best meets the needs of our child. That really is at the heart of every initiative that we have discussed on this floor over the course of the last 3 weeks when it comes to improving the quality of schools. Liberating parents. liberating teachers. liberating States to pursue education excellence on their terms. What happens when we give the government the authority to define quality is you really do constrain the ability of the customers to define quality. If we look to any other industry in America. all of the great industries that we have that are the best in the world. they are so because of competitiveness. They are so because of a marketplace that they compete in. They compete to do the best. to offer the greatest quality. the greatest amount of convenience and the lowest cost.
Date: 1997-10-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Any caring parent who understands What the Clinton Administration is trying to accomplish with these tests ought to be suffering a psychic toll of their own.
Date: 1997-10-24
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. as we know. the Chinese Government leaders are coming to America and President Clinton is welcoming them with open arms. I want to ask the President why these Chinese Communists can do no wrong? Is this not the same Chinese Government who illegally donated funds to the Clinton campaign? The same one that uses slave labor. that imprisons political dissidents. and nowhas leased up our former naval base in Long Beach. a Communist encroachment right here in the United States? Mr. Speaker. instead of taking money and wrapping his arms around the Chinese leader. the President should be rapping them on the knuckles for their horrific record of religious persecution and human rights violations. Mr. Speaker. I say to the President. "Mr. President. stop pandering to a corrupt government that tortures its people and thumbs its nose to a free world."
Date: 1997-10-24
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about another point which is not brought up here today. I want to say that I am very personally disappointed that we now have a chance to stop another sale of our strategic petroleum reserve. I understand when the Committee on Appropriations. over the objection of the Committee on Commerce. proposed a onetime sale. just a onetime sale of SPR oil to pay for the decommissioning of Weeks Island in Louisiana. I remember at the time. I said. if you open the door. everybody is going to look at this as a giant piggy bank. All of a sudden. if you need some more money. let us sell some more SPR oil. This is getting to be the fourth time now that we have gone into this oil reserve. It is about time we make a stop. This is emergency energy for this country. and here we are. dipping back into the oil reserve one more time. Mr. Speaker. I think the taxpayers in this country ought to know this. The oil that we have down there is about $35or $36abarrel oil and we are turning around and selling it for about $22. This is not a good deal for the American taxpayer. This should be stopped as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Speaker. I am in a position here where I think we have some really good things in this bill. but when we look at the possibility of taxpayers In this country getting ripped off. I think this is a good illustration of it. They are getting ripped off. So therefore. I think what we have to do is go back and review this again. We had a tremendous discussion prior to this bill going to conference. so I would just say now that this rule should not allow the sale of SPR oil. It should not allow it. It is a ripoff to the taxpayers.
Date: 1997-10-28
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. today I rise in strong support of this resolution. and I want to thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor. I listened carefully to the debate. It is still confusing because we all say we want the money to go to the classroom. but I hear debates against that. We have to have our No. 1 priority to be the classroom. the handson. where the teacher knows the childs name. and we have the teaching of the basics. reading. writing. arithmetic. What I found when I got to Washington. DC. though. about 3 years ago. was a lot of apologists for the bureaucracy. fighting hard every day to keep the Federal buildings full of bureaucrats. when actually we need teachers in the classrooms at home. This resolution just says 90 percent of our Federal dollars. the money we pay. and gets to the Federal level. goes into the classroom. How can Members argue with that. at a time when people are saying. go back to the basics. we want local control? I urge a strong vote "yes" for this resolution.