macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-10-01
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

On my own time. then. I would remind the gentleman that Mount Prospect. Ill.. is a totally inappropriate parallel with Washington. D.C. The gentlemans distress may have some basis but. on the. other hand. that Is an issue to be taken up with the 50 States if he wants to repeal article I. section 8 of our Constitution and Its mandate to the Members of this body. which Is expicit and abundantly clear. just as the home rule bill is abundantly clear on the responsibilities this body has. It Is tax dollars from our area which go to underwrite the costs of this city to a very substantial amount. not the other way around.
Date: 1981-10-01
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Yes. I would Indeed like to close out the debate from this side. The distinguished chairman of the committee is short of time. I realize. and requested that I yield him 2 additional minutes. I am more than happy to do that. and then I will finish our presentation.
Date: 1981-10-01
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speakr. I want to congratulate the dc Ain~uished chairman of the Committee n the District of Columbia for his tery able presentation of his side of his debate and the gentlemanly way n which he has conducted himself throughout the afternoon. I would simply rcmind my colleagues that there are many D.C. residents. as wvell as constituents outside of this juirisdiction. who feel that they were not properly represented at the time of the D.C. Council hearings. For examnple. Rev. Cleveland Sparrow. president of Sparrowrorld Baptist Corp. here in Washington. D.C.. stated. Congress imst learn that the D.C. City Council did not hold hearings to obtain our views on this matter. Rev. Cary Pointer. president of the Baptist Ministers Conference of D.C.. urz.-ed that the Congress should act to veto this legislation because it did not represent the constituencies that he represents. There are other civic and community organizations in D.C. and. as I Indicated earlier today. I have 10.000 petitions from residents of Washington. D.C.. urging Congress to do the responsible thing In overturning what they feel was an inappropriate act by the D.C. Council. When I say "an inappropriate act." I am not talking about the entire bill. The entire bill. in fact. has. much merit. 1 would say easily 90 to 05 percent of it is a plus. very positive. But I think it has such flagrant deficiencies that It is essecntiail that the Members of this body vote to send It back to the drawing boards. back to the D.C. Council for more extensive hearings. more input. more representative input from sonie of the affected parties wvho have strong objections. I think. therefore. the responsible position on the part of this body is to vote aye on House Resolution 208 disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council and approving the District of Columbia Sexual Assault Act of 1981. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1981-10-01
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum Is not present.
Date: 1981-10-15
Speaker: ROBERT W. DANIEL (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment and In support of the committee provisions regarding peanuts. You have no doubt heard allegations that the program is antiquated. unresponsive to market conditions. and costly to the consumer. Those charges are untrue. The peanut program has provided a stable income for family farms and provided consumers with a major. inexpensive source of protein for the last 40 years. We have seen extraordinary domestic market stability and strong export market growth as a result of the program. The U.S. crop has failed to meet domestic needs only twice In the last 40 years. Both times. the shortage was the result of severe weather conditions. and both times. the market bounced back with amazing resiliency. The program has also insured a stable commodity price. Not only has the peanut program not required exorbitant subsidy payments. but It will become even less expensive if committeerecommended changes are enacted. Net outlays by the Agriculture Department- for dairy products over the last 30 years have surpassed outlays for peanuts over the last 40 years by more than 400 percent. Wheat. corn. and cotton supports have each cost twice as much as the peanut program. In comparison. new restrictions placed on peanuts in the committee bill should make annual -program costs less than $2 million by Many family farms have remained in operation thanks to the programs allotment system. The success of many farms has relied In large part upon the ability of small farmowners to use the value of their allotments and the stability of peanut prices as collateral for loans. The program administered by the Department of Agriculture has made the United States the worlds leading exporter of edible grade peanuts. Imports that entered the country as a result of the 1980 domestic crop shortage were often unsuitable for the standards of American manufacturers. Several million tons were either Infested with Insects or contained aflatoxin. a deadly fungus. European processors were more than willing to pay much higher prices to gain American peanuts during the shortage. even when other Inferior Imports were readily available. American agriculture Is suffering severely from the effects of high interest rates and production costs. which are rising much more rapidly than farm income. Elimination of the peanut program would -sound a death knell for many rural areas already devastated by the condition of the economy and by several successive seasons of bad weather. The committee bill. title VII of H.R. 3603. maintains the essential elements which have insured the remarkable stability of the peanut commodity program over the last 40 years. and Includes certain technical changes to make the program even less costly to the Government. I urge my colleagues to support this title as reported by the House Agriculture Committee.
Date: 1981-10-21
Speaker: ROBERT W. DANIEL (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the Federal tobacco price support system has provided a stable income to many owners of small farms for the last 48 years. This program Is extremely complex. and any efforts to change It without a full understanding of the ramifications of such changes could be extremely harmful to many of the families who make up the backbone of Americas farm community. The committee system exists to insure that issues considered by the House receive more thorough study than can be given to them in the short time allowed during floor debate. The Agriculture Committee has spent a great deal of time examining the wide range of Issues that are traditionally Included in omnibus farm legislation. and has proposed a series of wellthoughtout changes to many of our current agricultural programs. The committee has not considered the tobacco program. since this program Is established under legislation separate from omnibus farm legislation. To make sweeping changes on the House floor would deny the American public. the tobacco Industry. and farm interests the right to express their views on what changes are necessary and prudent. I. ask. my colleagues to defeat this amendment. and if we believe changes are necessary. then let us make these changes after thoughtful rather than hasty consideration.
Date: 1981-10-22
Speaker: MARLE NEE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do not want the State Department In charge of my agricultural business. However. I would like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota two questions.
Date: 1981-10-26
Speaker: ROBERT C. HORTON (republican)
Chamber: S

Director. Bureau of mines. Department 0f/the Interior. Washington. D.C. DEAR Boe: As you are aware. there is concern among many in the minerals sector over the continued decrease of milling and smeltIng facilities In the United States. Because of this decline It Is becoming more difficult for individual prospectors and miners to have their ores and concentrates milled or processed. I am particularly concerned because of the potential Impact that this trend is having In Nevada and other western states where mining is an Important part of our economic structure. AS a specific case study of national signifioance. could you please prepare for me a preliminary analysis of the major factors relative to this issue that addresses the stateoftheart of technology for processing ores of gold. silver. copper. lead. zinc. or other nonfuel commodities of major Importance to the minerals economy of Nevada. and other western states. that identifies areas in which technological improvements could make a significant contribution toward Improving process economics. thereby encouraging. private sector Investment. and that discusses alternative technologies that may be of utility to the individual prospector or miner. I would appreciate an assessment of the significance of mining to the States overall economy. present milling and smelting capacities (whether toll. captive. or a combination of the two). future prospects of milling and smelting operations within Individual States. an economic asscssment of current operations where known. the Impact of environmental rules and regulations upon the continued operation of these plants. and any other pertinent Information or data you think would aid individual miners and small operations anld continue to contribute to the growth of the minerals industry In this region. I want to thank you for agreeing to have this important evatration done by the Bureau of Mines. Your staff has indicated It may be possible to have this analysis completed in three months. In time for the Congress to make recommendations for Fiscal Year 1083. Your cooperation and assistance with this important matter is greatly appreciated. With best wishes. r am Sincerely.
Date: 1981-10-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank my distinguished colleague from Mississipp1 for yielding this time to me. I had the opportunity to serve on the House Administration Committee when we Initially Imposed these limitations. They grew. in no. small measure. out of a feeling of outrage by one of the colleagues here in this body over a colleague in the other body. one who had a readily identifiable nationality. who spoke before an. organization representing that same nationalistic constituency. He had. received an honorarium to the tune of $10.000. whereas his average honoraria. were in the neighborhood of $250 to $300 maximum. I shared this sense of outrage that that colleague felt when he said we have to prevent this. we have to guarantee that we put some limitations on. what Members can earnm I argued at the time. and I voted against what we did at the- time. and I voted against this sort of thing that that Is a decision. with full reporting. for that mans constituents to make. If they feel that he has been compromised as a result of accepting an honorarium from a particular group like that. then they will ultimately render a judgment at the polls. And my colleagues know that their opponents will be going after them and attack them on the grounds that they have possibly been compromised. if one can show any correlation between accepting an honorarium and subsequent votes that have come before this body reflecting the interests of that group. We all go through that with PAC contributions already. My colleagues know that if you get. PAC contributions that are heavily tilted to this interest group or that. that your opponent will use that against you in a campaign. The papers in your district will use it to question whether you have not conceivably been bought off by this group or that. As a result. I would urge my col. leagues to recognize that the FoundIng Fathers stipulated! three conditions only for holding office here. One is that you be a resident of the State: two. you be a citizen for at least 7 years. three. you be at least 25 years of age. They also stipulated. that. States can put up no other conditions for holding office in this body. To be sure. we can. But what I am suggesting is that when we Impose the. limitation on outside earned Income increasingly we are transforming the composition of this body. The previous speaker already touched upon one ingredient. That Is the fulltime professional politician. the person Increasingly who cannot make It on the outside. and perhaps is holding the best Job that he could ever hold in his life here as a Member of the U.S. Congress. If that does not potentially compromise a Member. I do not know what does. The other is the millionaire who can afford to clip coupons and make $1 million a year or more In socalled unearned Income and serve In the U.S. Congress. These two groups certainly do not accurately reflect the constituencies that we represent in this country. I urge the Members to support this resolution. I am wvholeheartedly In favor of it.
Date: 1981-10-30
Speaker: D AMATO (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I move that the Senate Insist upon its amendments. request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon. and that the Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
Date: 1981-11-05
Speaker: GERALD E. WILDA (republican)
Chamber: S

Loinita. Calif. DEAR MR. WILDA: It Is with great pleasure that I accept from you the sword of Yoshida Hanesuke in order that It be transmitted to Sengakuji. The fact that you have maintained this sword with great care and have chosen to have it returned to its rightful owner demonstrales your sincerity. The return or this important and priceless object will be deeply appreciated by many thousands of Japaneive. You have made a lasting contribution to closer ties between our two peoples. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your gesture of kindness. You are to be commended for your spirit of generosity. Thank you. Sincerely. TsUNEo TANAICA. Consul General.
Date: 1981-11-17
Speaker: CO NYERS (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. I would like to come to the floor to indicate to him and to my colleagues In the Congress the mutual concern that we all have for human rights and their violations wherever they may occur In the world. I would tell him that I have been visited by members of this organization who constitute Ukrainian Public Group. for promoting the Helsinki accords. and I must say that I was quite frankly taken aback by what they told me of the suffering. of the treatment that their relatives and families and friends have been afforded. and the years of struggle that this special order signifies. And so. out of that concern I want to say to my colleague that I come to the well to join those in the Congress and those In this country who feel deeply about the concern of Justice and equality and human dignity throughout the world. I would like to work with him. with the Foreign Relations Subcommittee that Is now holding hearings in this matter. and I would like to learn more about It and find out what we as a Congress can do to bring all of the assistance that we can to these very courageous people. Now. if I might say to my colleague. I hope that we will be able to separate many of the complex Issues on foreign policy and foreign relations from this particular incident. I think that It would be a grievous error If we were to link the consideration of disarmament with this particular Issue and suggest that because one Is insoluble. the other Is insoluble. As the gentleman knows. I have tried to promote a peaceful context in which the nations on this planet could resolve their differences. because I am persuaded that violence and the nuclear arms race will never solve the problems of my people or his people. And so. It is with that stillstrong hope that I approach this subject and I Join the ranks of those that the gentleman has persuaded to march with him. and hope that perhaps there can be some dialog started. I was talking with another Member who feels as strongly as we do about this subject. and perhaps this will go down as a naivete. but perhaps there can be some dialog that has not been Initiated take place. One of the members of the subcommittee to which I refer that hearings were held yesterday told me. that some part of the Russian Government was there recording the proceedings. It Is my fervant hope that anything from those proceedings will not be further used to harass or suppress the people for whom we work so diligently to gain their freedom and to make Justice work all over the world. and particularly In the Soviet Union. So. it Is out of these deeply held views that the gentleman has been able to bring me to his side and enlist In what I consider to be a very noble and a very praiseworthy cause. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1981-11-17
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as Americans who are free of governmental oppression. we tend to take for granted the freedom guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In our relative comfort and sense of freedom. we often fail to acknowledge the constant struggle being waged by people throughout the world for recognition of their fundamental human and civil rights. On the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group. we must bring to mind the pain and suffering of those courageous Ukrainian men and women who have believed in the principles - and implementation of the Helsinki accords. The attempts of the Ukrainian Group to monitor human rights abuses in the Soviet Union. have been met with severe persecution by the Soviet Government. The members of the group have been subjected to imprisonment. long sentences in forced labor camps. and harassment by the KGB. Disregarding the groups efforts. the Eoviet Government has repeatedly violated the terms of the Helsinki Final Act and continues to flout the basic intentions of the Helsinki accords. Talks on the Helsinki accords resumed in Madrid In late October. To clearly demonstrate our support for the courage and dignity of the Ukrainian Group. it is Incumbent upon the United St~tes to bring to the attention of the Soviet representatives their Governments gross violations of compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. We must call for a halt to such violations and a hait to the persecution and harassment which Ukrainian Helsinki Group members. and all those around them. must endure. We treasure the rights and freedoms which we have struggled to obtain. Let us never become so complacent that we are blind to the struggles of others.*
Date: 1981-11-19
Speaker: DANF ORTH (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. we have worked out an agreement to deal with the trade adjustment assistance problem. First. a parliamentary Inquiry. November .19. 1981
Date: 1981-11-20
Speaker: HARRISON SCHMITT (republican)
Chamber: S

Chairman. Subcommittee on Labor. Health and Human Services. Edication. and Related Agencies. Committee on Appropriations. Washington. D.C. DEAR JACK: We would like to convey to you. and to the members of the Subcommittee on Labor. Health and Human Services. Education. and Related Agencies. our strong support for the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program (DVOP) and for funding of this program in fiscal year 1082 at the level of $43 millionthe level already approved by the House of Representatives in H.R. 4560. We believe that the DVOP program. which is conducted pursuant to section 2003A of title 38. United States Code. as added by the Vterans Rehabilitation and Education Act of 1980. is one of the most successful and significant efforts addressing the problem of unemployment among disabled veteransspecifically among serviceconnected disabled Vietnamera veterans. Under the PVOP program. veteransmost of whom are disabled Vietnamera veteransare assigned to local employment service offlees and other locations. It is their job to identify other disabled veterans in need of employment assistance and to provide needed employment services. including counseling. job development. and placement. This program is designed to employ on the DVOP staff formerly unemployed disabled veterans who understand the needs of other veterans in the same predicament and can serve as models demonstrating to employers how well disabled veterans can work when given a chance. A heavy emphasis is placed on the development of. and placement in. private sector jobs. The success of the DVOP program has been Impressive. To date. more than 174.000 disabled Vietnamera veterans have been placed in jobs as a result of DVOP efforts. The DVOP program is also a very effective complement to the veterans readjustment counseling program. which is conducted by the Veterans Administration and through which Vietnamera veterans still encountering difflculties in making successful transitions from military to civilian life may seek assistance at storefront "Vet Centers". The number one problem expressed by veterans who have sought assistance at the Vet Centers is unemployment. Thus. the DVOP program. through referrals from the Vet Centers functions as an integral part of the readjustment process. We therefore request Jack that you give careful consideration to our interest in and commitment to the DVOP program in connection with your considerations. We would anpreciate your favorable consideration of this request. Please let us know if we can provide any additional information concerning DVOP or any other matter. With warm regards. Cordially. Alan Simpson. Chairman. Alan Cranston. Ranking Minority Atember. Strom Thurmond. Robert T. Stafford. Bob Kasten. Jeremiah Denton. Frank H. Murkowski. Jennings Randolph. Spark MT. Matsunaga. and George Mitchell.
Date: 1981-12-10
Speaker: GONZA LEZ (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker.. re9rig. the right~o. object. I merely w=td to as)k a. question of the distinguished. chairman *with respect to what. this conference. agreement reflects. if any. with .. respect. t o. the public housing operating subsdies?--
Date: 1981-12-11
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Speaker. much has been said in recent days about the proposed design of a national memorial to veterans of the Vietnam war. The following Is a fact sheet and overview that will shedsome light on this controversy. I commend. it to the attention. of mycblleagues:
Date: 1981-12-14
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. in last Sundays New York Times magazine. Zbignlew Brzezinski. President Carters National Security Adviser. referred to. President Reagans arms reduction speech as "a welcome return to the Carter formula of com-. bining a strategic buildup with a commitment to comprehensive arms control." It Is not immediately clear precisely what Professor Brzezinski means by the Carter "strategic buildup." That is like talking about the Chicago Cubs victory record. Perhaps he is referring to the Carter cancellation of the Bi. the delay In building the Trident submarine. the erosion of our N~avy. the onagain offagain declaions on the neutron warhead. That is a letdown. not a buildup. The Carter years are universally acknowledged as a time of unmitigated and total disaster for American national security. SThat Jimmy Carters National Security Adviser still does not recognize this goes far to explain the air of unreality that marked the Carter national security policies.