macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1997-04-15
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

I thank the gentleman for yielding very much. and I think when we all do town meetings out there we talk about a lot of different things. but I do tell you one thing. The issue that gets everybody going very. very quickly and very. very favorably is talking about this tax system. Now they know that when they go and make out those taxes and mail them in today that they should sprinkle holy water on it before they mail it -because who knows what is going to happen? There have been a number of polls out. You take your taxes to a CPA. He figures them out. He figures. them out. or she figures them out. then you take them to 15 other CPAs. and they will all figure them out different. So who is wrong and who is right? And the IRS will tell you it is a different figure altogether. There is one thing right there. and. my colleagues. when you get on these talk shows. and the one thing that I continually say is how would you like to take all of that money. that was withheld from you in your last check and put it in your pocket. and you could decide whether you want to spend it or save it or whatever you want to do? It is yours. If you consume it. if you buy a television set or if you buy a piece of furniture or a suit of clothes. sure you are going to pay a 15 percent tax. But everything else is gone. and I just say that the American people are the ones who are pushing this one and we have to be the catalyst to make it grow.
Date: 1997-04-15
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I took the liberty of going back and pulling up the 1913 tax forms. Now. this was a surprise. There were 14 pages of explanations. Now. only 14. my friend from Louisiana. and the forms that you fill out were withholding. deductions. and what you had to pay. three forms. Now. I do not know how many are in that Tax Code. but it was very. very heavy when we lifted them in that one single tea box with that chain around it today. So what has happened. and the gentleman is exactly right. we go back to that 1986 bill. We have over 8.000 pages now of codifications. rules. regulations. and everything else stuck in there. and I do not know how anybody can figure anything out of what we have. So that is whatis bad with it. It is too complicated. It is just too complicated. That is what we want to do. is simplify it.
Date: 1997-04-15
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. the gentleman mentions in a couple of cases with this box of cereal. and I think it is very. very important that the American people understand. this is not a yalueadded tax. A valueadded tax is a terrible way of taxation. All along. every time a product changes hands. there is a new tax added on it. This is not a valueadded tax. The second thing that is wrong with this system that we have is this lousy inheritance tax that is out there. People work all their lives to build a farm or a business or whatever it is. and they want to finally give it to their children. The IRS steps in. takes 50. 60 percent of that hardearned money that people have labored over.
Date: 1997-04-15
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

That is exactly right. I want to make one other point. and the- gentleman from Louisiana already has. and this is bringing jobs in. If we look at the people in this world. and we have talked to them. who are international marketeers. they say. do you realize what would happen if you passed a piece of legislation like this? Manufacturers in foreign countries would say. we can come over here. build a factory. create jobs. turn around and export. no taxes. But. the important thing is that we are creating a lot of jobs. and that is all good for the American economy.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. only in Washington do people systematically create a mess and then stand up before America and declare. I am just so proud of this mess that I have created. That is right. Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the politicians who created our multimillionword Tax Code. It just saps 40 percent of the family budget so that you cannot afford your own healthcare or any other necessity. It is truly a bizarre Washington ritual where the politicians come to town year after year. make the Tax Code more and more complicated. more and more illogical and then leave town and tell their constituents how proud they are of their work in Washington. DC. For 40 years my liberal friends on the other side of the aisle were in power. In 1995.. that 40year attack on freedom came to an end. but their legacy to the American people is a Tax Code of one gigantic. multivolume embarrassment. an embarrassment of which they are nonetheless enormously proud. I. on the other hand. want no part of that legacy. Mr. Speaker. I. on the other hand. can only look to our tax system as a cruel joke that is the enemy of common sense.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. Mr. Speaker. reclaiming my time. I would ask the gentleman. does he think that the Congress. I mean our countrys founders. when they wrote our Constitution. they were pretty smart fellas. and they said. OK. we will appoint these judges for life. but we will give the Congress a method to rein them in if they get out of hand. And that reinin. I think. is what the gentleman from Texas was alluding to earlier. that the Congress has the sole discretion to impeach when they get out of line.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me quote from the Federalist Papers again. from Hamilton. in No. 78. He also says. which follows what the gentleman said. "It may truly be said that no judge shall have either force nor will but merely judgment." If the gentleman recalls back in the 1800s. they even talked about impeaching judges. Federal judges because they cussed in court.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado . one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who has a comment.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I do not think that is the case at all that we are trying to enunciate here. The fact of the matter is that the judiciary should. and I agree with the gentleman. rule on the Constitution and constitutionality of anything that happens in the Congress or out in the States. But the question that we are addressing is that some of these judges. for whatever reason. political. social. or otherwise. have ruled based on that. not necessarily a constitutional base for their ruling.
Date: 1997-04-16
Speaker: SAM JOHNSON (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado talking with us. Let me just read the gentleman from article 3. section 1. Ralph Burgers comment. he is a legal commentator. who says that the framers of our Constitution did not intend to shelter those who indulge in disgraceful conduct short of great offenses. meaning that the high crimes and misdemeanors does not necessarily have to be an offense that is written into the law. It is not to import the standards of good behavior into high crimes and misdemeanors. but to indicate that serious infractions of good behavior. though less than a great offense. may yet amount to high crimes and misdemeanors in common law. What he is saying is that judges ought to act like judges and they ought to rule on the Constitution. as you and I both agree on. and that is all we are trying to say.
Date: 1997-04-17
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I am one of the freshmen here. I have been here on the job for 4 months. and I had hoped to come to Washington and deal with the matters that my constituents and the people of the country expect us to deal with. cutting taxes. providing tax relief. balancing the budget. returning authority back to the States. and doing things of a noble nature. noble causes. Instead. I have come here and heard the other side berate our Speaker day after day and try to discredit the institution of Congress for what I consider to be. instead. a rather noble cause and a courageous response. The Speaker taught a college course on American civilization and disclosed the terms of that course to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. apparently not to the satisfaction of the committee. He reached an agreement. and in the process of that agreed to compensate the taxpayers for the cost of the hearings and the investigation. He stood up to the task and he agreed to participate and to compensate the taxpayers: A courageous act. I ask the American people to contrast that act of courage with the cowardice that we have heard from those who would oppose the Speaker.
Date: 1997-04-23
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. I again want to certainly thank the gentleman from Ohio and the ranking members of this committee for moving this finally along. The objectives of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Amendments Act. which is H.R. 688. are really simple. This is identical to the bill that we passed last year. ran out of time. but I think it is very imperative that we finally get back to it. It is going to give the States. as has been stated. more financial stability in operating their underground storage tank programs and greater flexibility to address unique environmental problems. particularly in rural America. Throughout the drafting process. the gentleman from Michigan and I solicited and received substantial input on how to best achieve our goals. As a result. the final product we have before us today meets all our initial goals. with a strong emphasis on quicker cleanups and stricter enforcement. H.R. 688 has over 70 bipartisan cosponsors and diverse private sector support. The socalled LUST program was first enacted in 1984. The trust fund followed in 1986. The current LUST statute allows States to spend the Federal LUST trust fund money in a limited number of instances. mainly for corrective actions where an owner is unable. or unwilling. to clean up a leak. Along with the corrective action standards for leaking tanks. the LUST statute also requires owners and operators of underground storage tanks to meet certain standards. The deadline for compliance with these tank standards is 1998. When implemented. the tank standards will provide an important preventative protection against many future leaks.
Date: 1997-04-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Well. thank you very much for yielding. This is truly a critical issue for us. and this report that is coming out tomorrow is a landmark report that I think the American public ought to pay close attention to. and we expect that we will mirror closely the last trustees report that was released. and this notion of the bipartisan aspect of our concern about Medicare and our need to save and preserve the Medicare program is a very real aspect of our deliberation. And when you start with the very basis of the debate that exists on Medicare. I think you see that. * This report is not a Republican report. In fact it is not really a Democrat report. although the trustees. the Medicare trust fund. are appointees of our President. Bill Clinton. and please help me with some of these names. Robert Reich. the Labor Secretary. it includes Donna Shalala as well. Maybe you can help.me. Who else?
Date: 1997-04-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

You know. and if you think about how many debates we have here where the basis for the debate is often the subject of disagreement on this particular issue. there is no denying. from either party or anybody involved. that this. Medicare program is undeniably going to go bankrupt within 4 years. In fact. it is a fact that the Medicare program spends approximately $40 million every day. Every day. that is something that is very difficult for people to fathom. but I have to say. and I appreciate the chance to participate in this discussion tonight because when I. as a new Member here in Washington. have been on the job for about 4 months and running for Congress was an eyeopening experience for me. My grandmother. who lives out in Colorado Springs. told me. she said whatever you do back there in Washington. you have to save the Medicare program. and I assured her that we would. that that is our goal and our objective and that we would do whatever it takes to accomplish that. And you mentioned a few minutes earlier just about we certainly have the financial side of maintaining solvency of the fund. But there is also the behavioral side of Medicare itself. and what I mean by that is we have to change the system in a way that restores the patientphysician relationship that we once had. this whole notion of a government thirdparty payer that will pay the bills with little questions asked. in many cases. causes. for a significant amount of fraud in many cases. for overtreatment and other examples of where questions that are just not asked as a consumer would perhaps. And you know the Medicare Plus program that the Republicans had proposed 2 years ago and was eventually thwarted here in Washington involved those very opportunities for patients to have choice within the Medicare program and to be treated like real customers. real consumers of health care to provide the consumerdriven accountability that you have in so many private aspects as well. So certainly we have to look at the financial side of increasing spending at a responsible rate so that we do not .bankrupt the program as others have proposed to increase more than that. in fact. drain the account and result in ultimate bankruptcy. but we also have to look at the behavioral reforms to the program that allow us to be treated like real customers. like real consumers. and to restore that relationship which is so vital in the health care delivery system.
Date: 1997-04-23
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

If the gentleman will yield. you know the strengthening is precisely how we pay for our program to maintain the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. and the programming. the $30 bandage example. is one that I hear a lot. not bandages per se in my town meetings. but I hear a lot of examples just like that. And what I hope people will realize is that those kinds of occasions that occur every day in America in fact rob and steal medical opportunities for the millions of Americans who receive health care and benefits through the Medicare Program. And without a doubt. these different options and examples that you mention of various service delivery systems and networks that we would hope recipients would be able to choose among and be a part would end the example of the $30 bandage. will put an end to the example of the $200 splinter removal. as I had heard out in Colorado. examples like this that you just routinely hear. and it is just remarkable. I would like you. though. to speak to just one more time. I do not think we can say it often enough that our plan actually envisions spending more money per recipient over the next 5 to 6 years than certainly what we are spending today. Many people think that the only way you can save Medicare is to somehow cut spending or cut funding for the program. We are not talking about that at all. In fact. we are talking about increasing the percapita benefit to somewhere around $6.700 per recipient. Today I think we are around $5.000 per recipient. somewhere around that neighborhood. But by increasing the spending at a responsible rate and at the same time putting the patients and giving them some real incentive in the accountability side of this delivery system. that is how we are going to save the program. that is how we are going to maintain solvency. and hopefully that is what is going to ultimately earn the bipartisan support here in the House and the Senate and over at the Presidents office as well to sign Medicare reform in a program that will save the program.
Date: 1997-04-24
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. today is an important day for my grandmother and my wifes grandmother and for many of the seniors that I have had a chance to meet over the last several years in my short career in politics. Today is important to them because this afternoon the Medicare trustees will meet and finally release the annual trustee report. This is a body of trustees appointed by the President. If recent trends hold true. the Medicare trust fund will be bankrupt within 4 or 5 years. and when that happens. all of these seniors will lose their hospital coverage. My grandmother and -my wifes grandmother asked me to promise them during the course of my campaign that I would not let that occur. and I aim to maintain that promise and uphold it. For 2 years. the Republicans have been fighting to save the trust fund. Our plan would actually increase Medicare spending by an average of 7 h percent per year from the $5.200 per recipient today to $7.100 by the year 2002. That rate of responsible growth is what is needed to. in fact. maintain the solvency of the trust fund. We also intend to offer choices and to restore the patientphysician relationship that has been lost by a large government. thirdparty payer system. which is going bankrupt unless we act now to save it. I urge my colleagues on the other side and the White House. as well. to join us in the effort.
Date: 1997-04-24
Speaker: H ELMS (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. i -esident. at tie close of business yesterday. Wednesday. April 23. 1997. the federal debt stood at $5.345.088.835.181.58. (Five trillion. three hundred fortyfive billion. eightyeight million. eight hundred thirtyfive thousand. one hundred eightyone dollars and fiftyeight cents) One year ago. April 23. 1996. the federal debt stood at $5.106.372.000.000. (Five trillion. one hundred six billion. three hundred seventytwo million) Five years ago. April 23. 1992. the federal debt stood at $3.877.376.000.000. (Three trillion. eight hundred seventyseven billion. three hundred seventysix million) Ten years ago. April 23. 1987. the federal debt stood at $2.264.001.000.000. (Two trillion. two hundred sixtyfour billion. one million) Fifteen years ago. April 23. 1982. the federal debt stood at $1.058.822.000.000 (One trillion. fiftyeight billion. eight hundred twentytwo million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $4 trillion--S4.286.266.835.181.58 (Four trillion. two hundred eightysix billion. two hundred sixtysix million. eight hundred thirtyfive thousand. one hundred eightyone dollars and fiftyeight cents) during the past 15 years.
Date: 1997-04-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination program. as amended.
Date: 1997-04-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. H.R. 363 extends for a period of 1 year the Department of Energys authorization to conduct research on electric and magnetic fields. In 1992 it became clear to Congress that there was a need for more research and more coordination within this particular area and more public dissemination of the information. mainly on the health effects of EMF. and thus the 5year DOEEMF RAPID program was authorized. Since its creation. the RAPID program has added a great deal to our understanding on the effects of EMF. Unfortunately. however. the authorization to conduct the 5year EMF RAPID program will expire before the program is scheduled to conclude. At the subcommittee hearing we learned this is not because the program is behind schedule. but because money was not appropriated for the program until after the first years authorization had already passed. We want to now extend that authorization for one year to get this concluded in a logical manner. Importantly. this program has been cost effective. Industry stakeholders have matched the Government dollar for dollar in funding this particular program. This has allowed the Government to do more with less. a concept which both Republicans and Democrats certainly can support. In fact. when the program is concluded. it is expected to cost nearly $20 million less than what was originally contemplated. The cost to the Federal Government of extending this program another year is $4.5 million. Mr. Speaker. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 363. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1997-04-29
Speaker: DAN SCHAEFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin . the chairman of the full Committee on Science.
Date: 1997-04-29
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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 363. the bill just considered.
Date: 1997-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

I would agree wholeheartedly. In fact. the other portion of that report has another graph showing that the amount of money we spend in the United States has no bearing whatsoever on our ability to teach better. that. in fact. the more and more we spend. the worse we seem to do when compared to national standards. Here is the quote from the report. We spend. on average. about $6.500 per pupil. That is nationally. Only one country spends more than we do. and that is Switzerland. Yet these countries that outperform us. Hungary. the Czech Republic. South Korea. Japan. England. France. Denmark. Germany. and so on. all spend fewer dollars per pupil than we do here in the United States. yet we rank so poorly in comparison with those countries.
Date: 1997-04-30
Speaker: BOB SCHAFFER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Colorado

That is the perfect point that I think the American people need to understand in this particular proposal because what the $5 billion that the Clinton administration wants usto believe is going to go toward school construction is only a fraction of the total cost of the project. What I mean by that is that $5 billion is targeted toward buying down the interest that a school district would incur in financing a construction project. But even though a tiny fraction of the dollars that would be available to those school districts seems small. the fact that it is Federal funds and has a DavisBacon Act attached to them. when those funds are commingled with the State or local dollars that are involved in a project. it really spoils the buying power of all of the dollars that should be going toward bricks and mortar to build viable schools and schools that promote learning for our children. But instead what the Clinton administration design is. is to have a greater portion. the 11. 20. 30 percent I have heard in many cases depending on what area of the country. to have that percentage of the dollars go away from construction. away from children. .and toward some other purpose. Now that other purpose may be useful to some people. but it is not useful to children. It is not useful to our goals to try to educate children. and this is the real conflict and vision. I think. between our Republican vision for schooling and the Democrat vision of schooling where we really want -to get those dollars to kids. We really want to put them toward learning. not toward some union satisfaction that is a payback on a political promise.