macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1989-07-17
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding mc this time. and I want to say that I join in the remarks that were Just made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania . I also believe that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. VEwroJ is going to go down as one of the great subcommittee chairmen in this area. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of H.R. 1484. a bill to reform the National Park Service. I believe this bill is a very valuable measure that will enable us to protect our national parklands long into the future. I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota. one of the hardest working and most knowledgeable subcommittee chairmen that we have in the House. for putting together this bill. Clearly. decisions affecting our parklands are never easy and require the most professional and objective judgements. This bill would create a better management environment where this would be possible. particularly through the requirement that the Director of the National Park Service be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve a term of 5 years. Furthermore. by requiring all Park Service employees to report exclusively to the Park Service Director. it would ensure that our most professionally qualified employees will be making the important and complex decisions affecting our public lands. Most of all. this bill would provide for a bettersystem of accountability for such decisions. It will be possible to precisely determine who made what decision and why. It will make the matter of oversight infinitely easier. Mr. Chairman. over the years. the Department of the Interior for the most part has done a good job in protecting and preserving the public lands and parks of this country. H.R. 1484 in my view will enable the Department to do an even better job by enhancing the role of professionals who have the ability to best manage our parks.
Date: 1989-07-17
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise In support of H.R. 2799. to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 for the 1990 crops to allow the planting of alternative crops on permitted acreage and to amend the provision regarding the designation of farm acreage base as acreage base established for oats. and I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this legislation. The production of canola. which is crushed to produce a very healthy cooking oil. has not kept up with the demand for this crop. The United States has had to import significant amounts of canola from Canada. To meet the demand of U.S. consumers has required canola oil imports of 250 million pounds In 1988 alone. This bill will amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to remove impediments to the production of canola and several other alternative crops such as rapeseed. sunflower. safflower. flaxseed. kenaf. crambe. guayule. milkweed. and meadowfoam. Specifically. H.R. 2799 would consider that acreage planted to certain alternative crops on permitted acreage under certain conditions would be considered planted to program crop. H.R. 2799 will extend to 1990 crops similar treatment given 1989 crops as a result of the Food Security Improvements Act of 1986. To the extent that program acreage is diverted to production of these nonprogram crops. there will be a reduction in program outlays. As for oats. H.R. 2799 will require the Secretary of Agriculture to permit producers to designate. for the 1990 crop. any portion of their farm acreage base as oats acreage base other than that portion designated for soybeans. This designation Is permitted regardless of the acreage limitation established for teed grains. Until recently. oats were produced primarily as a feed grain for livestock. Research has shown. however. that the consumption of oats by humans reduces cholesterol levels and has other healthful side effects. The resulting Increase In demand for oats has caused an Increased reliance by the United States on Imported oats. The USDA estimate for 1989 Indicates that nearly 100 million bushels will be imported. Contributing to the low production levels Is the structure of the Federal commodity program. H.R. 2799 will correct this situation by allowing increased planting of oats. Mr. Speaker. I believe that H.R. 2799 Is Important to correct Imbalances in the supply of several critical crops. The bill is fiscally responsible and according to estimates will have a positive effect on the budget. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to my colleagues attention an editorial appearing in todays Daily News. one of the daily newspapers in my district. It reads: Too LONG TO WAIT For more than two years. the U.S. Justice Department and the White House have left U.S. Attorney Terry Halpern dangling in a bureaucratic limbo. She was named interim U.S. attorney in June 1987. A few months later. she got the title of acting U.S. attorney. Somewhere along the line the "interim" and "acting" got dropped. but her official appointment got lost in the 1988 presidential election shuffle. Meanwhile. the Justice Department has invested her with the power and authority that other U.S. attorneys around the country enjoy. But Halpern still lacks two important items: a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. She deserves both. During her twoyear tenure. Halpern has enhanced her reputation as a tough pros. ecutor and earned one as an efficient. fair but nononsense administrator. She has doubled the size of the federal prosecutors office. and appears to be the first U.S. attorney in recent Virgin Islands history to appreciate the importance of beefing up two key areas: narcotics and whitecollar crime investigations and prosecutions. Her only real shortcoming seems to be in the area of public information. While we certainly do not expect her to compromise the integrity of any investigation or prosecutorlal case. she can and should play an important public role in educating the community about crime in these islands. One major benefit would be enhanced community cooperation in solving crimes. That aside. we believe Terry Halpern has proved to be a competent. concerned U.S. attorney who has earned the communitys respect. She deserves President Bushs unqualified support as his nominee to this important position. and enthusiastic Senate backing during the confirmation process. We hope both developments occur soon. Two years is long enough for Halpern. and the Virgin Islands. to wait.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. it is always a great experience to work with the gentleman from Florida. He did offer this amendment in a little different form at the subcommittee level. and at that time we opposed it on the basis that it needed some work. That work has been accomplished. The amendment has been modified so that this side is willing to accept it. is glad to accept it. and congratulates the gentleman from Florida for offering the amendment. We will support it.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield. the gentleman is supporting the Ray amendment. and there has been some talk here that there has been some improvement with the record of the DOD or the DOE on cleanup of these facilities. Just this morning. before our subcommittee. before we came over here. we had the inspector general from the Department of Energy and he issued a report which has been covered in the press already this morning. the most scathing denunciation. a comprehensive denunciation. condemnation. selfIndictment of the Department of Energy. saying they have no infrastructure. they have no system. no training for employees. no systematic approach to identify or assess the problems. Very complete description. and he did not just set forth principles. he also identified the number of violations and potential violations. which is In the thousands on both sides. I might remind the gentleman of another thing. not only is the Department of Energy In the same or worse shambles than ever. but in reference to Defense. there Is a provision In 6001 which we are merely amending and clarifying. which says that the President has the power to exempt any Federal facility in the name of national security. at any time. by Just the wave of his hand. I really think there is no need for this amendment.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I understand the concern of the gentleman from Alabama . and he has stated it very well. but there has been a refrain here about worst first as if there is some such priority in effect by the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. As I mentioned before. the inspector general of the Department of Energy came to our committee and said that there is no systematic ability. no system in the Department of Energy for doing the Department of Defense work. and there is no capacity to assess. identify or assess. the compliance problems. There is no priority in effect by the Department of Defense on the worst first. Mr. Chairman. the only priority is bombs first and safety last. and that is what the Secretary of Energy said when he came into office. and that is what everyone has said. and there has been no indication of any change. So. if we are really serious about treating everyone equally. we cannot make an exemption such as this in this amendment which will gut the bill. or at least will gut a portion of the bill with reference to clean tip. It takes cleanup out of it. and that. is what we are really worried about. is cleanup.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would also like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma a question. because I would like to bring this debate back to where we have some base. It seems to me that the gentleman from Oklahoma is not just arguing for the Ray amendment. but is arguing against the bill. is that not right?
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I think as to this amendment we should get back again to the point that we are talking about an amendment. and many of the speakers are against the bill. They are against cleanup. They do nut think we can afford cleanup. But what this amendment says basically is that one gets a "getoutofjail card" free. but does not have to clean up. One pays the fine. but does not have to clean it up. That is basically what this amendment does. The States must have the ability to protect health and safety. as I would address the gentleman from Oklahoma. It is going to be a painful process. It is going to be a painful process. and the estimates are up to $200 billion or more. and we are either going to have to pay the bill or continue in this quiet delusion that I think that those who are arguing for this amendment are under. that we somehow have a worst first priority policy. which we do not have. and we still have one DOD policy. and that is bombs first. safety last. The Inspector General who testified today for the Department of Energy said. "Talk about are we going to be In court. we ought to be in court." He said. "A partial list Is 174 violations and 233 potential violations." The States had better be in court. and we had better be ready to pay for it. and we cannot continue to delude ourselves into thinking that we can somehow imagine that there is some other priority list and we do not have to pay for it.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the question of source of payment for penalties has been discussed here and it has been rather glibly stated that it will come from the Department of Defense or Department of Energy. However. as the report shows. the United States is subject to civil penalties for violations of various penalties and the decision has come down from the Comptroller on this issue. If the agency disputes the liability for the amount of penalties assessed by the State and refers the matter to the Attorney Generals office. then a compromise settlement or judgment would be payable from the permanent judgment fund appropriation by the Congress.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

What this bill says is that the Department of Energy. which has 17 plants doing the Department of Defense work. and these are subject to penalties. and we must make up our mind as a society to pay for the clean up. We cannot operate under the delusion which has been suggested here that there is some sort of a priority list that the Department of DefenseDepartment of Energy has in which they will clean it up on their own. Where will they get the money on their own? Members cannot have It both ways. saying they have a priority list to follow. and then on the other hand. do not have the money to do it.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman has been talking about the prohibitive costs and the arbitrariness of asking that we clean up the mess and clean it up now. but on the other side of the coin. if we put this amendment in so there is not any effective requirement and we take away that tool for enforcement of corrective action for cleanup. we are going to be living with sacrifice zones. There are those of us who are near where these nuclear cesspools exist. Wherever we have had a nuclear plant or hazardous waste site or an Army or Navy base and they have left this mess and they do not have to clean it up and the States cannot force them to clean it up. then we are going to have a sacrifice zone there. We cannot have it both ways. The opponents first said that there would be a "worstfirst" kind of priority. and the DOD has identified the problem. The DOE identified the problem years ago and it has not done anything about it. We found that out today. That is what we say. the worst first. But then when we are faced with the rejection of that argument. when that argument falls down. we say that we cannot afford it. we cannot afford everything at the same time. But we can afford safety. we can afford the health of our constituents. and we can afford to let the States enforce the law. we can afford to allow the polluters to be treated the same as everybody else. That is the way H.R. 6001 was written in the first place. It has been distorted. and all we are asking to do is to have us come back to it so we can go from here on and require not only compliance but require cleanup. Anything else makes no sense .t all. We cannot face our constituents and say: Yes. from now on we are going to ask for compliance but for those people who have been out of compliance in the past and have created a health problem for us. we cannot afford to clean it up. That is what they are saying. Anybody can characterize it anyway they want to. they can call them the polluters or whatever they want to call them. but that is what they are saying.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. this is a bill that we have been discussing to clarify section 6001. the waiver of immunity clause. Our chairman has effectively put it that this was the intent when section 6001 was adopted. Since then we have an unrelieved bleak history of pollution by the various agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Energy. Following up on that. instead of adopting a priority list of cleanup. as is suggested here. these Departments have continued to pollute. They have made certain promises and in those promises have lied to the Congress. They have covered up. They have condoned. The FBI found out in Rocky Flats that it was a policy of contamination and concealment. Now. what can you do to Government agencies when the Federal police force. the investigative agency. says they are following a policy of first contamination and then concealment? Do we trust those people to follow up at their own discretion on a cleanup procedure? Of course not. Now. we have got to make up our minds. and I suggest to the gentleman from New York and to those who have spoken. we have got to make up our minds whether we really want to clean up this mess and whether we are really going to withstand whatever the pain is. We cannot avoid it by calling people names. Just because the Wall Street Journal in their masthead editorial uses terms like "yahoo." we do not have to adopt it and suggest that perhaps the attorneys general of the various States are yahoos. nor do we suggest that those people who bring actions which are based upon State law and based upon Federal law. that they are yahoos. They are citizens. and if they can prevail in court under the law as it is and has been adopted. then we ought to be as a Congress willing to appropriate the necessary money. We ought to do what is necessary to clean it up. We cannot on the one hand say that the environment is the big issue out there. and on the other hand say that we are going to put in a provision here that says we want our agencies to comply. but not to clean up. We are not going to force them to clean up. N/ow. it Just does not do to say there are other provisions. This is the provision of the law that was put into the law. that was put there to put teeth into it so the Federal agencies would have to obey the law. Now. we should not exempt. and we did not exempt them in the first place. and now that they have messed it up. it is not the time to say. "OK. you messed it up. we are going to give you a getoutofJail card free. You dont have to clean it up."
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. .Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. The gentlemans amendment is of narrow application. We are given to understand that the EPA accepts it. and it is acceptable to the committee. I support the amendment.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 1056. the bill just passed.
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill. HR. 1056. the Clerk be authorized to make such changes and technical corrections as reflect the actions of the House In amending the bill. H.R. 1056. Federal Facilities Compliance Act of
Date: 1989-07-19
Speaker: VON RAB (democrat)
Chamber: S

We have a sort of permanent. I guess the longest established floating requestto paraphrase Damon Runyonwith the Mexicans to have that. But it has not been granted. Senator KERRY. Has it been reiterated in recent days?
Date: 1989-07-31
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 1472 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill. H.R. 1472 would establish the Grand Island National Recreation Area in the State of Michigan. It would designate all lands within certain specified boundaries as a part of the recreation area. including privatelyowned land. and extend the boundaries of the Hiawatha National Forest to include this national recreation area. H.R. 1472 adds to the National Forest System all federally owned lands within the national recreation area and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire privately owned lands on Grand Island. Michigan to be added to the Hiawatha National Forest. The bill would also provide for the management of the lands within the national recreation area. Mr. Speaker. although this bill was initially referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. it deals largely with matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture according to the rules of the House. Despite the fact that the Committee on Agriculture was granted a sequential referral of the bill. I believe that Its initial referral should have at least included the Committee on Agriculture. consistent with the Rules of the House as they pertain to matters affecting forestry In general and forest reserves other than those created from the public domain. The Committee on Agriculture considered H.R. 1472 on July 13. 1989 and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote. During consid11.1536 COP eration of the bill by the Agriculture Committees Subcommittee on Forests. Family Farms. and Energy. several amendments to the bill. as reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. were considereo and adopted. Tha first would direct the Forest Supervisor of the Hiawatha National Forest to serve as one of three Forest Service employee members of the advisory commission to the recreation area established by section 8 of the bill. All Forest Service members would serve in a nonvoting capacity. The second amendment adopted by the subcommittee would require the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with the State of Michigan regarding the designation by the Secretary of zones and time periods within which hunting. fishing. or trapping would be prohibited. Mr. Speaker. I commend the efforts of the sponsor of H.R. 1472. Mr. KILDEE in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also want to thank Chairman VOLKMER and the members of the Forests Subcommittee for their efforts. as well as the cooperation of the Hon. BRUCE VENTO. chairman of the Interior Sub~committee on National Parks and Public Lands for allowing us to bring H.R. 1472 to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1472.
Date: 1989-07-31
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 to provide for drug and alcohol testing for railroad employees. as amended.
Date: 1989-07-31
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that In the engrossment of the bill. H.R. 1208. the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers. punctuation. and cross references. and to make other techmical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in passing the bill.
Date: 1989-07-31
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter therein. H.R. 1208. the bill Just passed.
Date: 1989-07-31
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. a great friend and towering colleague has passed away and our thoughts extend to the many years we worked with him and knew him well. The State of Texas benefitted from Mr. Collins keen Intellect on matters of energy policy. If there Is one legacy he leaves us. it will be his fight for the Texas oil and petrochemical Industries. He knew more than most the importance of oil. gas and chemicals to the economic health of our great State. His voice for the State was sorely missed. and now we mourn his passing at a time when his wisdom is needed. We extend our heartfelt sympathies to his family and we tell them that we knew Jim Collins as a friend. one we will not soon forget.
Date: 1989-08-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture be permitted to sit on today. Wednesday. August 2. 1080. while the House is meeting under the 5minute rule.