macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1997-06-24
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. it is a powerful plan for the Republican Party that is moving this forward. It signals a day when we have moved the politics of pork out of Washington and put the American family first. We are going to balance the budget in short order. If we have a strong economy. my colleague is right. we are going to see this budget balanced before the turn of the century. We are going to provide tax cuts for middle class families. we are going to offer hope and prosperity for those young children who are saddled today with a $200.000 obligation. longterm. to the current Federal deficit. We are going to resolve that for them before they get into their 30s. It is a very powerful plan and program that the Republican Party has moved forward. and I hope that those handful of Democrats who are sincere about putting American families ahead of pork barrel politics find the courage to join us in this plan. Mr. Speaker. I am confident that some of them will. but we just need to keep talking about this over and over and over again. The American people are smart enough to figure out that this is to their advantage and they are going to be with us.
Date: 1997-06-26
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. as my colleagues know. this tax relief bill gives part of America back to Americans who pay too much in taxes. There is not a Member here who can deny that this bill provides relief to families through the $500 per child tax credit. Gives entrepreneurs and companies the opportunity to create more job opportunities in America by lowering the capital gains tax rate than the alternative minimum tax. allows families to keep their farms or small businesses by providing death tax relief and gives more Americans a way to send their kids to college and buy a first home by expanding IRAs. During this debate there are going to be two different arguments about what tax cuts mean. By the time we finish. I think our differences will be clear. To Democrats tax cuts mean less money here in Washington for this Government to spend. To us Americans tax cuts means people will keep more of the money that they work so hard to earn. InAmerica we ought not to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. and we also should not discriminate on the basis of income. We in Congress have a responsibility to bring Americans together for everyones benefit. not divide them with class warfare rhetoric. Seventysix percent of the tax cuts in this bill go to people making under $75.000. and a hun"dred percent of these tax cuts go to all Americans. who are overtaxed. Neither the President nor Democrats in Congress should stand in the way of hardworking Americans getting a break from high taxes. As my colleagues know. Americans want. need. and deserve their tax relief now.
Date: 1997-06-26
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. this is a picture of my grandmother. Here she is. a small little child. This is her in Ukraine when she was a littl6 baby. This is her soontobe husband. this is my grandfather in Ukraine before they both immigrated. or when they immigrated to the United States. Three percent of their income was taxed by the Federal Government. How far we have come. Here is their great grandchildren. my children. They were born into a world where they owe $20.000 as their share of the national debt. This is their share. The party that has been in charge for 40 years has taken our country from this to this. The land that my grandparents immigrated to in search of freedom and liberty and low taxes and opportunity has become a country where nearly 50 percent of the average family income is taken away. confiscated through taxation at the Federal. State. and local level. Here is a farmer from Colorado standing next to me. Democrats suggest he is rich. He is an average American. He deserves a tax break.
Date: 1997-07-08
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. President Reagan was an admired figure for many reasons. One of the reasons he is admired is because he called for tax cuts during the 1980 Presidential campaign and he delivered on his promises after he became President. He did not suddenly discover that the economy was in worse shape than he thought and use that as some kind of an excuse not only to cancel the tax cuts but actually increase taxes. which is what we saw in 1992. It is time to take a cue from Ronald Reagan. Mr. Speaker. the Republican Party stands for lower taxes. and my constituents decided to send me to Washington because they expect Republicans to deliver some long overdue tax relief to American workers. Now is the time to deliver. The tax bill that the House is considering contains tax relief for all taxpayers. with middle class families getting the biggest break of all. Regardless of income. the Republican Party thinks our constituents should keep more of it. That was Ronald Reagans philosophy. and I could not agree more.
Date: 1997-07-09
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. who owns stock and who will benefit from the capital gains tax .relief that the Republicans are attempting to provide? Well. it is time for some surprising news. and this news flatly refutes the Democrat catch phrase: Tax cuts for the wealthy. According to a recent stock market survey. stock ownership doubled over the past 7 years to 43 percent of the adult population. Fortyseven percent of all investors are women. Fiftyfive percent are under the age of 50. Fifty percent are not college graduates. So let us think about that and compare it to the absurd stereotypes perpetuated by the liberals. Almost half of all American adults own at least one share of stock. Slightly under half of all shareholders are women. More than half of all investors are not yet 50. and half of all those with a stake in investments are not college graduates. Are the liberals really against helping these people? Are they sure that cutting taxes on savings and investments only helps the rich? Maybe it is about time the liberals updated their stereotypes. -
Date: 1997-07-10
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. lend me your ear. It looks as though the Democrats have been taking lessons from Mike Tyson. I say that because Uncle Sams tax bite is too big and the American family is suffering. Just take a look at this chart. The tax bite has progressively evolved into the Mike Tyson tax. Back in 1950 when my parents were starting out and trying to live the American dream. the tax bite was only 6 percent of their budget. Did you hear that. Mr. Speaker? Six percent of the family budget was sent to Washington. DC. Well. trying to live the American dream has gotten a little bit harder over the years. The family budget has been turned on its ear. The tax bite today. which can only be called the Mike Tyson tax bite. is now 23 percent of the family budget. The Government has only. it is 23 percent. the Government has earmarked 23 percent of the family budget for Washington bureaucrats. Let us throw the IRS out of the ring and declare victory for the American family. Let us give the American dream a fighting chance.
Date: 1997-07-10
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I rise to note a matter which is of great concern to myself and the members of the Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 2017. contains language which would allow the sale of approximately 10 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The legislative language in H.R. 2017 changes existing law regarding the drawdown of the SPR. and violates House Rule 21 which prohibits legislating in an appropriations bill. Yesterday. we asked the Rules Committee to issue a rule which did not waive points of order against this language. Unfortunately. because of some miscommunications. the rule waived the point of order and an objection was made to the unanimousconsent request to modify the rule. Thus. Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed that the point of order which would lie against this provision was waived. However. I have spokenwith Mr. REGuLA and Mr. SOLOMON about this and I understand they will work with me to see that this language is removed at conference.
Date: 1997-07-10
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The real problem here is that the Federal Government owns an awful lot of land. All of us conservatives and those who have kind of a libertarian perspective on government need to deal. with that. The real issue is that the Government owns so much land. Now we are not going to resolve that debate here tonight. But given the fact that the Federal Government owns so much land. the next question is. since we are part of that Government. since we are. in fact. Members of Congress who preside over -that body. that entity. how do we manage properly the land that we own? These issues are not big issues for private land owners. They manage their forests properly. In my county back in Colorado. the county I live in. 70 percent of the land in my county is owned by the Government. Seventy percent. These are critical issues for Us. Now think about that. I think those of my colleagues who are proposing this amendment might really .understand this if the Federal Government thought about taking over and occupying more of their State. But this seems to be an issue that is of great concern out in the West. Now what about those forest areas and those lands where the timber sale may not cover the cost of roads? Those are rare occasions. but they do occur. But I would submit that we still need to be concerned about logging those areas. for the following reason: The timber industry and timber harvest is an integral part to sound forest management. Let me show my colleagues what happens when you do not properly manage a forest. Now the gentleman over here showed a blackandwhite picture of something he believed to be a hazard. This is a color picture. This picture is In color. It just looks blackandwhite because there is no life left here. Everything is dead. This is what happens when you do not get in and thin a wrest. The trees get crowded. They compete with one another for water. They get stressed. The bugs and disease move in. The trees die. They become brittle. They will catch on fire. and it burns to the ground and there is nothing left there for anybody. no wildlife. no valuable timber. no recreation. nothing. It is going to rain here and all of it is going to wash into the river and kill the fish.
Date: 1997-07-11
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. when the Democrats refer to this mythical tax cut for the rich. I wonder if they have ever thought about running infomercials. Better than the typical "get rich quick" scheme. all one has to do is dial the Treasury Department at 2026220120 and they too can have the Democrats declare that they are rich and undertaxed overnight. That number. again. 2026220120. Treasury operators are standing by. Tell them the income. and. presto. they will double it. If someone thinks they are only making $45.000 a year. think again. The Treasury Department says it looks like $75.000 to them. Cannot qualify for that new credit card? Cannot afford a night in the Lincoln bedroom? No problem. The secret is in an obscure Treasury Department manipulation called family economic income. That is right. family economic income..It is like being in a higher tax bracket but without all the extra income. Do not delay. this get rich quick offer ends soon. and it is brought to us by the same people who make the currency. Act now. the Treasury Department is standing by at 2026220120.
Date: 1997-07-15
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the IstookVisclosky amendment. I believe that this legislation will protect small businesses from unfair competition and will ensure that states receive the nontribal tax revenues due them. The Istook amendment addresses several important issues: Should a program designed to help native Americans tribes acquire lands for agriculture. industrial. and cultural purposes be instead used to drive out local competition? Should the American taxpayer be expected to toot the bill? The answer to both these questions is "no." In fact. the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that nontribal customers must pay State taxes on goods purchased on tribal land. For States such as Washington. New York. California. Oklahoma. and Michiganwhich are home to sizable tribal lands covering hundreds or thousands of square milesthe costs are extremely significant. My home State of Washington has lost $63 million in lost revenue from the sale of cigarettes alone. This figure. of course. does not include the lost opportunity costs to small business. men and women who were forced out of business because they could not compete with tax exempt tribal lands. Mr. Chairman. I submit to you that it is unfair that programs and funds intended to be used by tribes to provide low cost food. housing. and to foster native American economic development. and heritage be used instead to fund anticompetitive activities. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the issue of native American tribes collecting State excise taxes on sales to nontribal individuals that occur on tribal land does not involve native American tribes claims of sovereign immunity. Nor does it involve any existing treaty obligation of the U.S. Government. It is. instead. a problem which Congress has created and which Congress must rectify. The amendment before us would do that. and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Date: 1997-07-15
Speaker: TOM COBURN (republican)
Chamber: H

for his attention to this matter over the years. He can trust that he has my support in safeguarding the rights of all citizens against the influence of foreign agents.
Date: 1997-07-16
Speaker: DEBORAH PRYCE (republican)
Chamber: H

as secretary to the Republican Conference. We have a unified Republican effort here with these new elections to bring about what the American people are expecting of us: to balance the Federal budget for the first time in 27 years. to reduce taxes for middle income American families. and to solve the impending crisis with Medicare. It is my pleasure today to bring this news to the House. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to do what the American people sent us here to do. and that is their agenda.
Date: 1997-07-16
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

This really defines the classic debate that we see hero in Washington or the classic differences. I should say. between Democrats and Republicans. or liberals and conservatives. It is the difference between the entitlement mentality that the Democrats fight for every day here. which if one is a Democrat makes perfect sense to them. versus our model of encouraging honest hard work. which if one is a conservative or a Republican. that of course makes sense to us. Because on one hand what the Clinton administration is proposing is within that entitlement mentality. that entitlement framework. where we just send cash. The cash actually comes to Washington and it is redistributed by politicians here in Washington. We take from some families. we take that cash and give it to the charity of the governments choice. which in this case would be the individuals who would qualify under the Clinton entitlement tax credit. Again. contrasting that with our model which suggests that the harder you work. the more you contribute to our economy. the more you are willing to try to work hard to strive for selfsufficiency and provide for your family. the more we want to encourage you. We want to help that. We want to take less away from you. We want to take less cash out of your family budget and allow you to keep it. not just so you can spend it on things. but also so you can be charitable. This is the point that I think is frequently missed here. President Kennedy and President Reagan and many Presidents before that have shown us very directly that when you in fact reduce the tax burden on American families. charitable giving continues to climb. In fact. under the Reagan administration. charitable giving reached an alltime high. It was not until we undid the Reagan tax cuts under the Bush administration. and even taxed families more under the Clinton administration. that we saw charitable contributions begin to decline. These dollars. allowing families to keep more of their cash. to keep that cash within their family budget for their own discretion under their own judgment. to put toward their children. their schools. their communities. their churches. their synagogues. the charities of their choice is far better. I believe. and we all believe. than the liberal Democrat model of the entitlement mentality which suggests that everyone should send their cash to Washington and politicians here will spend it on the charity of the governments choice.
Date: 1997-07-16
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out for one minute. before we close here. I just want to reiterate what has been said over and over again. and I do not think we can make the point too often. that the real numbers that we have been working with and that we rely on show us that 76 percent of the tax relief that the Republicans are providing go to families earning between $20.000 a year and $75.000 a year. Again. that is 76 percent. For those people who want to find out the real numbers for what the impact of this tax plan is going to be on their families. the Republican Party has provided a Web site that I would encourage people to visit. The address is right here. It is hillsource.house.gov. You can call there or visit us here. It is a GOP tax calculator. You impute your income. and the service here will help figure out what the impact on your family will be once this tax package is agreed to. is signed by the President. The reason we do this is because we are very proud of it. We are convinced that when real families make contact with us and figure this out for themselves and apply our tax relief package to their family income. their average family income. they will see a dramatic reduction in the amount of cash which the Federal Government confiscates from your family budget. For that reason. we really encourage people to call. This Is a winning strategy for us as Republicans. The Democrats are scared to death because they know when the American families realize that this really does affect them and helps them. that it is to our advantage politically but. moreover. economically and for the country. That Is what we care about most. Please visit us. We would love to show how our relief package is going to help you.
Date: 1997-07-17
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

of changed her vote from "n So the motion to table ti reconsider the vote was agr The result of the vote we as above recorded.
Date: 1997-07-17
Speaker: JOEL KLEIN (republican)
Chamber: S

Acting Assistant Attorney General. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. KLEIN: Last night. I received a letter from Attorney General Janet Reno responding to a letter I sent to President Clinton relating to issues that I have with respect to your nomination. While I appreciate the fact that the Administration has acted to respond to my inquiry. the response was very general and lacks sufficient specificity to alleviate my concerns. I expect that you will be confirmed by the Senate on Thursday. However. before I can vote in your favor. I still need to resolve some concerns with respect to the role of the Justice Department in the antitrust aspects of telecommunications policy. In particular. your assurance to other Senators that you reject the VIII(C) standard with respect to the Justice Departments evaluation of a Section 271 application by a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) needs further explanation. I would like a more detailed and specific analysis from you on how the "irreversibly open to competition" standard relates to the VIfI(C) standard. which was recommended in the Conference Report on the Telecommunications Act of 1996. How does the "irreversibly open to competition" standard differ from the VIH(C) standard with respect to assessing adequate local competition and the impact of RBOC entry into long distance services on long distance competition. In our meeting last week. you said that the standard that you and the Antitrust Division have developed is stronger than the VIH(C) standard. and more appropriate in your judgement. I would like your analysis why this is the case. I want to assure you that I have an open mind on this subject. My position is not absolutely wedded to the VII(C) standard as the only test for evaluation of a Section 271 application by an RBOC. Rather. I become concerned when an Administration official adopts a position that differs from previous Adminlstration policywhich I fought for in the debate over the Telecommunications Actand I would like to better understand the new position. As I said on the Senate floor last Friday. I do not doubt your abilities nor your integrity. I simply would like some clarification on some issues that I fought lard to secure in the Telecommunications Act at the request of the Administration before the Senate votes on your nomination to be Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely.
Date: 1997-07-22
Speaker: LINDA SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Washington

Mr. Speaker. a special thanks to the chairman. the gentleman from New York . This is very. very important because it says something more than is before us today. It does not just talk about another country intervening in American politics. it talks about them dictating how we deal in commerce. Boeing and McDonnellDouglas are both American corporations. They are not international corporations. they are not other countries. We do not even manufacture in the European market or the Community. and yet they had decided that they are going to protect one of their own. who is already subsidized. and try to change competition. Well. we believe in competition in America -but we also believe in sovereignty. So if this is to go through. and if the President were to roll on this one. as someone said earlier. then we would set a precedent for the future. and that would be a precedent of other countries deciding to direct how we deal with our business in America. * McDonnellDouglas and Boeing have come together in an honest merger that has been OK in America. is fair. honest and competitive. We should not have another country come in and tell us to do something different. I think it has been said that this particular merger not going through would jeopardize jobs in California. but I think that it would jeopardize other American jobs. again as we see other countries. including this European Community. making a decision to do this in the future. Again I want to commend the sponsor of this. he has taken the time to bring it forward. and the committee chair. who has given us this time to make this statement but also to reaffirm the sovereignty of America.