macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1981-03-09
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the Presidents program for economic recovery has received overwhelmingly expressions of support from Members on both sides of the aisle. in both Houses of Congress. and from citizens of all parts of this Nation. This program contains spending cuts amounting to more than $50 billion. These cuts are necessary. and we must support them. At the same time. we in the House must exercise restraint in our own budgets. As an indicatiun of our united support for such fiscal restraint. the 52 Republican freshmen have unanimously approved a resolution calling for an average 10percent reduction in committee budgets. On behalf of our. freshman class. I am sending to your office today. Mr. Speaker. a copy of this resolution which has been signed by every member of this class. We must act now to reduce the outrageous increases that have occurred year after year in the committee budgets. Without the opportunity to * amend the committee funding resolutions. we will vote to defeat these reso. lutions when they are brought to the House floor. The letter and resolution follow: WAsHINGToN. D.C.. March 9. 1981. HON. THomAs P. ONEILL. Jr.. Speaker of the House. The CapitoL DEun SPEAKER ONEILL: On behalf of the 52member class of Republican freshmen. I am sending you a copy of our resolution calling for an average 10% reduction in House Committee budgets. As you will note. this resolution has been signed by every member of this class. We feel that some measure of fiscal restraint on Committee budgets is long overdue. and that to continue the pattern of enormous annual increases in Committee budgets would be absolutely irresponsible. I hope you will give careful consideration to the message that approval of such increases would give. and I urge you to support a more reasonable and responsible level of expenditure for House Committee budgets. in 1981. Sincerely.
Date: 1981-03-09
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is aware of many discussions by individual Members in this regard. but the latest information we have continues to be that many Members of the Congress are committed to increasing many special items within these committees.
Date: 1981-03-09
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there is an important differentiation to make here between what is authorized and what is actually spent. As you know. gentlemen. the entire freshman class of Republicans in this Congress has voted unanimously. all 52. to reduce the committee budgets. not over what was authorized last year. but over what was spent. The only way we can really compare apples and oranges here is to demand that this year we reduce the amount we spent by 10 percent. Authorizations are a little bit like funny money in a "Monopoly" game. There is a game. I think around here. where people come in requesting more than they really want and then they play a little game and allow the authorization to be reduced by a measly 10 percent. We are only interested in actually saving the taxpayers dollars. and reducing authorizations will not accomplish that goal.
Date: 1981-03-09
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

I would certainly agree with you. I think we have had. a very bad budgetary practice. As you may know. I came to this august body from the world of business. The world of business does not have this duplicitous budgetary procedure where you have authorizations. obligations. and what have you. We are only interested in what the actual dollars spent from the taxpayers pockets are. I think that is the message that came across very loud and clear last November 4. that if we are asking the American people to tighten their belts by $50 billion across this country. then here in Congress we must get our own house in order. I offer for example the budget of the Rules Committee which I is grown from $30.000 to $600.000 in just the past 8 years. Would the gentleman please explain to me what the justification there can be for that type of budget increase?
Date: 1981-03-24
Speaker: MARVIN COHEN (republican)
Chamber: S

Chairman. Civil Aeronautics Board. Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. COHEN: Recently I was visited by a group of travel agents from my home state of South Dakota. Among the topics we discussed was the ongoing competitive marketing case which is before the Boarl. The purpose of this letter is to not only pass along the concerns expressed by these individuals. but also to let you know that I. too. am alarmed by the possible consequences of this Investigation. You are undoubtedly aware that for many of us in primarily rural states the airline deregulation experiment has been a disaster. I voted against the measure. but with the deregulation tide peaking. there were few of my colleagues who joined me. However. I know that with the beneft of experience there are many more of my colleagues who now feel as I do. The point of this Is that we must be very careful not to make the same mistake in the case of the marketing travel services. We now have a very workable system which has proven Itself after many years of trial. It would be foolish. I think you will agree. to sweep the system aside in favor of something untried and uncertain. This is not to say that improvements could not be made to the existing system. But without a continuing government oversight and management system in place to monitor the effects of whatever changes are made. we could end up with another collapsing system similar to the existing air transport system in many rural states. I ask that as you proceed with this case. every effort be taken to make sure whatever changes result do not reduce the current availability. range and quality of service bravel agents provide. As we learned from the airline deregulation experiment. it is better to err on the side of being too cautious tWan too flamboyant. Sincerely. LsaDR PRESSLER. U.S. senator.
Date: 1981-03-25
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker. I am very happy that some remarks were made here by the gentleman from Texas about the election last year. because in fact I think that is one of the issues we should be discussing here. After listening to the difficulty that the Speaker has had getting people just to pay attention to what has been said in the well. I am beginning to think that many Members of this body are deaf. not only deaf to what we are saying but deaf to what the public said November 4. 1980. The public said they wanted to see inflation stopped. and the public said they wanted to see a Congress that spoke with one voice. They do not want a Congress that talks out of one side of its mouth and then talks out of the other side. I am happy to say that we 52 freshmen heard that election voice on November 4. and we are responding to it. That is why we presented a resolution which called for a 10percent reduction in what was spent. not in authorization. The public does not even know what authorization is. Would you want to go to the public and say. we are going to reduce the authorization for inflation by 10 percent? We are going to reduce the authorization for crime by 10 percent? We are going to reduce the authorization of unemployment by 10 percent? Would you want to say that and then turn around in the next year and not do anything on those scores? What the public wants to see is action. What the public wants to see is for us to reduce our spending. That is why I think this motion to recommit is so critical. Mr. Speaker. that we all ought to get behind it and support the public.
Date: 1981-04-07
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to the possible sale of advanced military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Though Saudi Arabia is a longstanding friend of the United States. and ardently antiCommunist. I do not believe that this proposed sale constitutes the proper approach to solving our regional problems. In addition to the fact that the sales will prove destabilizing in a region of great tension. a change of government might result in the seizure and use of the equipment contrary to our interests. Present U.S. capabilities. linked with improved access and basing in the region. provides the best means of countering possible increased threats.
Date: 1981-04-07
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Speaker. like many of my colleagues here today. I am gravely concerned that the administrations planned sale of conformal fuel tanks and Sidewinder airto air missiles to Saudi Arabia unduly exacerbates an already tense situation in the Mideast. Before the administration goes ahead with its sale. it ought to carefully consider the ramifications of this move. There is no region in this world more volatile or less stable than the Mideast. As the events of the last 2 years have starkly demonstrated. the Mideast no longer merely pits Arab against Israeli. Time and again in the recent past. the fighting in the Mideast has pitted Arab against Arab. The new F15 offensive capability Saudi Arabia stands to acquire will provide one Arab faction with a weapon heretofore unknown among the competing Arab countries. It not only poses a threat to peace and stability visavis the Israelis. but looms as a distinct threat to the peace and stability of the entire region. Saudi Arabia has been a long and valued ally of this country. Mr. Speaker. and I do not want the administration to in any way imperil our relationship with the Saudis. At the same time. however. I am concerned that the proposed sale of F15 offensive weaponry will undermine much of the Americanled conciliation and peacemaking in that part of the world.e
Date: 1981-05-12
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. It is with a great sense of personal sadness and loss that I join my colleagues In paying tribute to the late TENNY Gum. W6 in this House will sorely mill his friendship and good humor. his unfailing sense of dedication and service not only to his constituents and the people of Ohio. but to the Nation at large. TENNY GUYER and I shared a special bond In our pastoral background and our special interest in public speaking. I know of TENNYs deep faith and his ability to project that faith to all with whom he came into contact. It was a special gift that he had. and I am ever so grateful to him for his sharing over the years. His public speaking ability was recognized here In this House and across the country by the numerous groups which had the privilege to hear him over the years. As a public speaker. I was pleased to have the opportunity during the years we served together in this Body to have TENNYs good counsel and support in my efforts. He was uniformly generous with his time and gracious with his praise and assistance I think that the greatest tribute that we can note with respect to TENNY GUYER Is to recall his commission as an "Ambassador of Good Will" for the State of. Ohio and the Shriners. and the numerous awards recognizing his service. to~his fellowman and his spirit of friendship. I know that the memory of the great good that he shared over the years. and the sense of friendship that he left with all whose lives he touched will join with his great faith In God to give strength to his wife and family in this trying time. Carol and I share. in their loss. and that of the Nation and the people of Ohio9
Date: 1981-05-20
Speaker: I STEVENS (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. Presldent. how They. are willing to take it out of much time laremaining? - - - .-& M. or anywhere else they can get it
Date: 1981-06-01
Speaker: ROBERT T. STAFFORD (republican)
Chamber: S

MAY 15. 1981 Amount Savings accounts: Bellows Falls Trust Co........... $5. 000.00 Surlington Federal Savings & Loan........ 5.000.00 aurllngton Saving Bank......... .... 5. 000. n The oard aNl............... 25.000.00 Rutland Savings Bank .............. : 5.000.00 Total ........................... 25. 000.00 Certificates of deposit: First Vermont Bank..................... 1 000.00 Howard Bank ...................... 10.000.00 Marble Savings Bank................ 10.00000 Proctor Trust Co........................ 10.000.00 Total................................ 40.000.00 Checkin accounts: First Virginia Bank.................... 694.00 Howard ak........ .. 300.00 Riags Natixusi Bank..... ..... .6000.00 Total...................-*------- 6.994.00 Life Insurance: Connecticut General. MONY. NSLI. NYLIC. Travelers total cash value..... 18.194.00 Real estate (estimated market value): 3541 Devon Dr.. Falls Church. Va. (house) 125 000.00 27 Howard Ave.. Rutland. Vt. (house)..... . 000.00 64 Litchfield Av.. Rutland. VL (house)..-. 100.000.00 Total................................ 275.000.00 Additional assets: Contributions to Federal retirement (Dec. 31. 1980)................ --- 61.323.00 Law library and office furnilure (27 South Main St.. Rutland).................... 2000.00 Boat and 2 cars......................... 24.000.00 Personal property . ......... . 25.000.00 Total............................... 112.323.00 Stocks: A. T. & T. (100 shares at 58)............. 5.800.00 Bellows Falls Trust Co. (80 shares at 60) 4. 800.00 Cluett Peabody (20 shares at 13S)....... 272.50 Can Edison of N.Y. (100 shares at 281)... 2.825.00 Gillette Co. (20 shares at 3l%)........... 627.50 Greyhound (20 shares at 19)............. 380.00 Howard Bank (1.172 shares at 12)........ 14.064.00 International Harvester (20 sharesi at 17%). 350.00 Manufdcturer Hanover Trust (664 shores at M02 ......................... 21.663.00 Monsnto (40 shares at 72h)............ 2. 905.00 N.L. Industries (40 shares at 37)........ 1.500.00 National Distillers (40 shares at 265W) 1.045.00 Outboard Marine (20 shares at 18%.. 377.50 Security Pacific Corp. (16 shares at ..... 608.00 Time. Inc. (30 shares at 735()............ 2.208.75 Vendo (10 shares at 3).................. 30.00 Total........................------ 19.456.25 Liabilities: Eastern Liberty Federal Savings & Loan AssociationFirst Mortgage. Devon Drive. (April 1981)........................ 6.034.89 Recapitulation: Total assets.................... 53 967. 25 Total liabilities......................... 6034.89 Net assets........................... 530.932.36 *
Date: 1981-06-04
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. one of the military construction projects included in this authorization causes me and a number of my constituents considerable concern. It is the $14 million the U.S. Navy would like to spend in the construction of some 200 offbase housing units in the area surrounding the Willow Grove Naval Air Station. I am deeply concerned that the Navys plan may impose an undue hardship on the taxpayers living in the HatboroHorsham area. Since assuming this office in January. I have been in constant touch with naval officials in an effort to get them to seek other sites that might utilize existing nonprivate lands. instead of taking advantage of an existIng tax base. My constituents and I want very much to provide the Department of Defense with sufficient funds to undertake the military construction projects it feels are essential to enhance the defense readiness of this country. I am concerned. however. that the Navys housing expansion plans for the Willow Grove Naval Air Station may need to be completely reevaluated in an effort to insure fair and equitable treatment for the people of Hatboro and Horsham.
Date: 1981-06-11
Speaker: JAMES K. COYNE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mrs. FEN. WICK. Mr. OILMAN. and Mr. LONG of Maryland changed their votes from "no" to "aye." So the amendment offered as a sub. stitute for the committee amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Date: 1981-06-18
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified consistent with the proposals made by my minority representative on the committee. the gentleman from Illinois
Date: 1981-06-18
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

That is correct. A group of eligible clients would. as the gentleman has indicated. have to be comprised exclusively of persons who were all. individually. eligible.
Date: 1981-06-18
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for that. In the interest of expediting business so hopefully we will finish the bill before the day is out. let me just assure my colleagues that my amendment did appear in the RECORD and the majority and minority on the committee have agreed with the content of it. The objective is to address the original concerns for which the Legal Services Corporation when it was created. namely. serving the interests of the poor. And with the modifications made by my good friend and colleague from Illinois I think it does that. It is in the interests of addressing the objectives of the original legislation and at the same time trying to save taxpayers money. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1981-06-23
Speaker: ROBERT W. DANIEL (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am cosponsoring legislation. known as the National Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1981. which would provide equitable treatment to localities that have a large Federal presence. This bill. introduced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia. G. WILLIAM WHITEHURST. would allow localities to identify all eligible Federal properties and assess them at the same tax rate as other properties within the jurisdiction. The value of the Federal Governments holdings has been estimated at almost $280 billion. making it the single largest landlord in the United States. Over half of this value is in buildings. with the other half divided between structures and facilities. and land. Currently. a locality receives a full real estate tax payment if Federal employees or any federally related commission. board or agency is located in a leased building. If the workplace is federally owned. however. the local government receives nothing. even though local services. such as police. fire. and sanitation. are still provided. While military and other Federal installations contribute significantly to local economies by providing employment opportunities for community residents. taxexempt Federal property also causes local governments to lose a substantial portion of their tax base. A Federal payment in place of taxes would assure equitable treatment of both leased and federally owned workplaces. After all. Federal installations. particularly military bases. are intended for the welfare of the entire Nation. It is unfair to ask local governments with Federal property to bear more than a fair share of the cost. There currently are at least 57 ad hoc programs of payment in lieu of taxes in existence. But piecemeal application of these programs is unfair because some local governments receive payments .to make up for lost revenues. while other governments do not. A comparison of the private Newport News Shipyard with the governmentrun shipyard in Portsmouth illustrates the need for a National Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act. Newport News receives revenues from property taxes paid by the privatelyowned Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. The city of Portsmouth. however. receives no compensation for the loss of property tax revenues for the federallyowned Norfolk Naval Ship. yard. despite the fact that both facilities perform virtually the same function. The National Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1981 has been suggested as one answer to the possible cuts in the Nations impact aid program. The program. established in 1950. was designed. in part. to compensate localities with a Federal presence for the tax base loss. Property taxes are the local schools largest single source of income. helping to pay for such things as teachers salaries. classroom teaching aids. and programs after school. This proposed legislation will fairly compensate local governments deprived of local tax revenue because of an installation which serves the entire Nation.
Date: 1981-07-08
Speaker: F IEDLER (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask this as a point of Inquiry. This morning we received a "Dear. Colleague" regarding a very similar amendment by the Commnittee on the Judiciary. I was very interested in this particular amendment and am strongly in support of the concept. I believe we should use our resources to try to stop the criminal activity that is taking place on or near our borders. I am interested to learn the differences between the two amendments and what you feel your amendment would accomplish versus what might be aCcomplished by the amendment of the Judiciary Committee. whicji is similar
Date: 1981-07-24
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the Clinch River Breeder project has been with us for a long time now. Since 1970. when the project was originally authorized. it has suffered the fate of many Governmentrun. bureaucratically managed projectsits costs have skyrocketed. Its schedule has slipped. its management and contractual problems have multiplied. After 10 years of this type of Government managementwhat do we have? We have a project that is running 450 percent over cost. We have a project that Is not an economical source of power. And. worst of all. we have a project for which the American taxpayer will be picking up 91 percent of the tab. All this is before construction has even begun. After 10 more years of this kind of managementwhat will we have? We will have a project that will cost the American people billions more In precious Federal dollarsit is unclear how much the costs will escalate when construction actually begins. We will have a 375megawatt powerplant that is not needed by the region for which Its power is intended. And we will have a demonstration breeder which cannot be marketed or commercialized by anyone in the private sector. The current Director of 0MB. when he was my colleague in the House. made this point very clear. Let me quote him: Development of energy technology options should not be confused with their marketing and commercial introduction 0 therefore. the only justification for any continued funding of the Clinch River project Is the hard economic judgment that the market would select the breeder during the 1990s as the lowest cost form of nuclear electric power production. (The Market Case against the Clinch River Breeder Project. Sept. 17. 1977) SDavid Stockman did not think It very likely that the private markets would Justify this lavish funding for a breeder demonstration. So the question is clearly one of whether the Government should step in and make this decision for the private sector. Whether we in the Congress should substitute our judgment for the wisdom of the market. Whether we should commit untold billions of dollars of taxpayers money to a project which the market will not support. I think it Is time we stopped making these decisions for the market. That was one of the meanings of the election last November. I intend to vote against further funding of this project. because it is apparent to me that It Is unnecessary and. in a true sense. out of control. If we are ever to control the Federal budget. if we hope to achieve a balanced budget by 1984. we must have the discipline to oppose such runaway ventures as the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. I urge support of the gentlemans amendment.