macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1983-10-26
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield to me. no. sir. All I wanted to do was just protect the Interests of the Longhorn Ordnance plant in my district of east Texas. just to be brutally frank about.
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. there will be a lot said on the floor today about the action in Grenada. As the only representative In the Congress from the region of the Englishspeak.ing eastern Caribbean. I want to rcmind my colleagues again of the two points I have been stressing over the past 2 (lays: First. we most not conf use the eastern Caribbean. with its history of democratic rule. with other areas of the world. like Latin and Central America. where democracy has been a fleeting experience at best. Second. we nmst look to the history of these Islands to see that the genesis of the situation can be traced to the defenseless state these islands were left in when Britain pulled out after 300 years of colonial rule and exploitation. Britain pulled out of that chain of small islands for pragmatic economic reasons: They were no longer prof itable. The rationale was Independencc. but Britain left those small Islands. her former colonies. woefully unprepared for nationhoodwithout adequate protections against aggression from within or without. and without the basic economic toolsinfrastructure. utilities. roads. schools. and hospitals. that any nation. no matter how small. must have to survive. Let us face facts: The best defense against anarchy and aggression In any form is a strong equitable economy. The problems in Grenada grew out of the void left by the British. And we have Just been plain lucky that there have not been more Grenadas already among those struggling Islands. It is a credit to the strength of the people of these Islands that there have not been more.
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE IA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. We have to divide the issue in two. One. is the attempt by 0MB to. in fact. evade the law which was passed in 1937 giving the Secretary of Agriculture the authority In the development and the carrying out of marketing orders. Second. it bypassesand this is very Important to us. and I cannot fathom any Member or any subcommittee chairman or any committee chairman not agreeing with thisit is an attempt by 0MB to bypass not only their own administration. but to bypass the Congress. This is a basic constitutional obligation of the Department of Agriculture under the law passed in 1937. and of the Congress. both the oversight committee In the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Domestic Marketing. I say this Is wrong if for no other reason than that. and we should do everything possible to keep 0MB from infringing. perhaps illegally. on the authority of the Secretary and on the authority of the Congress. I think that should suffice for this Issue and I think that every Member should. because of his inherent Interest in this body. support the committee and vote against the amendment. Second. there is much confusion about marketing orders. There is a very simple explanation. Many years ago. there developed a cooperative effort. We have cooperatives in all of the producing areas in the United States. But some of them seeking a quasigovernmental cloak have gone Into marketing orders. Everything Is for the advantage of the consumer. You can point to the fact that they throw some oranges away In California. This Is the exception. This is not the rule. The basic responsibility of your Committee on Agriculture Is the consumner. And let me tell youand you cannot forget thisthe American consumer is the best fed. qualltywlse. In the world. possibly In the history of the world. The American consumer. each family uses the least amount of disposable income for food than any other major developed country in the world. possibly in the history of the world. We have hungry people in America not because of the farmer. not because of the cost of food. We have hungry people because there are not the Jobs and they are not making enough in the Jobs. It never has been the fault of the farmer. The farmer has always produced and will continue to produce. What I would like to leave with you also is that more often than not. when you buy at the store. or when you eat at a restaurant. the least amount of what was paid for that food went to the farmer. When you buy the bread. the eggs. the milk. the cheese. the butter. whatever. the lowest amount went to that farmer. If there is any subsidy. it is the American consumer being subsidized by the producer. by the farmer. .And in order to have orderly marketIng. quality food. at times commensurate with the needs of the perishable commodity. you have these marketing orders.
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is corrert. and we do that. and we welcome the gentleman any time to our committee to address that issue. David Stockman does not like marketing orders. If he goes around the Secretary of Agriculture and if he goes around the Congress. he does not give a darn. He is going to do it and that Is all there is to It. If you want this Congress dictated to under that approach then that is something else. I do not think that we should be. But getting back. because it really pains me to hear Members somehow pointing the finger at the farmer. that lie is manipulating for money. that he Is manipulating for greed. because he Is not. The American consumer gets the best quality food from that farmer for the lowest amount of disposable income in the world. in the history of the world. They get good quality food and the one that gets the least of anything you buy is that farmer. So that should not be an issue here. If there is hunger. we know as a matter of fact that we not only feed ourselves but we feed a lot of other people in the world. Some we give
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.. Mr. Chairman. I rise to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I would like to address these brief remarks to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. The U.S. Virgin Islands retained the Danish tariff authority in effect when the islands were purchased from Denmark in 1917. Consequently the Virgin Islands are not included in the customs territory of the United States. The government of the Virgin Ilands currently imposes a 6percent tariff on a number of goods pursuant to its authority granted by Federal law. The U.S. Customs Service collects these duties for the Virgin Islands and generally provides a U.S. presence for enforcement purposes. The collections are paid for by the Virgin Islands govcrinent. The U.S. Customs Service also prelears passengers returning to the United States from the U.S. Virgin Islands. as well as through the Virgin Islands from several nonU.S. points. Puties collected from the preelearance activities go into U.S. Treasury. but the Virgin Islands pays for these collections out of the revenues collected per its duties. The preclearance activity has been conducted in the Islands since 1967 wNhen the Governor of the Virgin Islands requested the service. Preclearance was viewed then. as it is now. as a boom to our tourist trade. allowing airline passengers the convenience of making quick connections and booking their luggage through to destinations. The agreement to preclear passengers returning from the Virgin Islands has been continually reviewed by the Customs Service. Unlike foreign locations such Os Bermuda and Canada which have cost sharing agreements in which they pay the difference between operating in the United States and preclearing locally. the Virgin Islands pays the cost of preclearance. The staffing of the Virgin Islands oporations is included in customs ceilings st by OMB and therefore becomes a target when cutbacks are necessary. Fu~rthermr . Customs is nervous about thl continued ability of the Virrin Isiuds to cover the preclearance through duties collected. This has placed considerable strain on the local government. In light of this I ask the distinquished chairman of the subcommittce. Will he support customs continuation of preclearance in the virgin Islands?
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the distinguished chairman. I would like to ask: Does this mean that the chairman agrees that the House should examine whether changes in law are needed to solidify this arrangement? The goal would be to ensure that the Federal as well as the territorial needs are adequately served.
Date: 1983-10-27
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

May I address one final question to the chairman? Would you agree to hold hearings. if necessary. on this matter?
Date: 1983-11-01
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. today is a special day in the U.S. Virgin Islands. It Is Liberty Day. and on this day. November 1. in the year 1915. the first edition of the Herald was publishied on St. Croix. the first free press in the Virgin Islands. which was then the Danish West Indies. This achievement came about through one of our finest native sons: D. Hamilton Jackson. Lawyer. educator. labor leaderhe traveled to Denmark to make a case before King Christian X and the Danish Parlia ment for the abolition of government subsidized and controlled ptess. His mission was successful. and through the newly free press. he secured for the people the right to organize. the right to end oppression. the right to a better life. He brought about. as Mavis Brady Donovan of the Virgin Islands Department of Education put it in her paper on D. Hamilton Jackson. "A renaissance in Virgin Islands history." The significance of this day is heightened for the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands by all that has happened in our neighboring island of Grenada. In view of that significance. the people of the Virgin Islands have chosen this day to send to the President a cable supporting the actions taken in Grenada. The message underscores both our ties to the United States. and to our fellow West Indians in the Englishspeaking Islands of the eastern Caribbean. That cable has been signed by 3.000 people in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date: 1983-11-01
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I join in support of the amendment being offered here today by Representatives MARtJORIE HOLT and BILL NichoLs. which will restore $110 million for two air defense systems and the BradleyTOW missiles to the Defense appropriations bill. This money is urgently needed to fund the purchase of the new Sergeant York air defense system and to permit production to begin for the Improved Vulcan air defense system we need now to modernize our frontline air defense capabilities and those of thle National Guard. There Is much more here at stake than dolars and cents. I have no doubt that the members of the ApproNovem ber 1. 1983 priations Committee did their best to bring us a bill which does the best it can with the money available. I only ask that we reconsider any proposal to delay the production of these two systems and the new Bradley TOW missiles out of a concern that any delay could prove to be harmful to the overall defense capabilities of this country. I am particularly concerned about the delays in the Vulcan air defense production which I supported as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. This system is due to be turned over to our National Guard units to give them real capabilities in actual combat. The bottom line now is that National Guard units do not have modern equipment and this would certainly hamper their effectiveness in wartime. Recently. I heard from the Guam National Guard units who expressed their support for these weapons. When I view the air defense capabilities of U.S. Forces in Guam. I cannot help but notice that there is a total lack of any means of combating attacking planes there. This. despite the presence of major U.S. facilities on Guam including a B52 base. I am reminded of the time when the Japanese invaded Guam in World War II and found that U.S. Forces were armed with no modern weapons. Over 40 years later. history seems to be repeating itself. I do not believe that Americans want their cities to go undefended and the HoltNichols amendment will begin the important process of providing our Forces with the air defense systems we need. Thank you.e
Date: 1983-11-03
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

In reference to what my dear friend from Georgia has been told. I am looking at page 8. line 22. paragraph (6) of H.R. 2867. where it says this: Thle Administrator may promulgate regulations under this subtitle which establish special standards for. or exempt from regulations. hazardous wastes which are generated by any generator who does not generate more than one hundred kilograms of hazardous waste per calendar month. It appears to me that it may be that some people or persons or organizations have told thle gentleman from Georgia that they are not going to abide by what is In the law. but I do not believe that. In itself. would change the statutory provisions of this bill.
Date: 1983-11-03
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I rise In opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemnan from Georgia. The specific Issue presented by this amendment is whether the EPA will have the authority to issue regulations for the disposal of hazardous wastes by small generators. The amendment provides that EPA will have no authority to issue major regulations affecting small generators. Instead. EPA will merely recommend such regulations to Congress. These regulations would take effect only if approved by both Houses by Joint resolution and signed by the President. The agency would have authority to Issue nonmajor rules affecting small generators. However. these rules could be nullified by a joint resolution of disapproval which is signed by the President. This amendment is just one of many similar amendments that this House may face in the coming days. These amendments are offered in response to the Supreme Court decision In the Chadha case which held that most forms of legislative veto are unconstitutional. The issue of legislative veto as it affects the relationship of the executive and legislative branches goes to the core of how this Government operates. It involves the concept of separation of powers which is the basis of the Constitution. The delicate balance of power and authority between the two branches should not be tampered with lightly. In my view. it is premature to begin adopting new types of legislative veto devices. Both the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee are undertaking serious reviews on the issue of legislative veto and the proper relationship between the executive and legislative branches. I urge my colleagues to resist the pressure to react to the Chadha decision without serious and careful consideration of the institutional consequences. We should not approach this issue in a piecemeal fashion. instead. we should allow these committees to complete their examination of the issue. I urge that this amendment be defeated.
Date: 1983-11-03
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am not at all in favor of the unelected officials writing the laws. As a matter of fact. that is one of the reasons that we are having a regulatory reform bill that we have been worrying with and working with for several years now. because I think that is one of the problems. I think that is the main reason why we must have legislation in the area of regulatory reform to prevent the unelected officials from writing in the laws from what they think the Congress means. I think it Is a delicate process that must be done in such a way that you preserve the rights of the Executive and the legislative. I think the Chadha decision goes a long way in doing just that and.-hopefully. when the regulatory reform gets back into swing in Februaryand that is our target datewe are going to come up with a bill which I think will be aceptable to this House on both sides of the aisle. to try to keep that delicate balance between the legislative and the Judicial.
Date: 1983-11-03
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I merely would like to state that it has been reiterated on many occasions on the floor of the Senate that indeed there would be consideration of a housing bill. Now. Mr. Speaker. I hope this commitment will be kept. I hope the President will encourage that it be kept. I hope the President will consider the IMP package much more important than some of the Ideological arguments that have come forth from the administration. The Democrats in this House have done all they can do. They have done a great deal more than their share. My colleagues. and I say this not only to you but I hope it reaches down to the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. it Is indeed time for the President and his party to share the burdens and the comipromise s. Let uts wvalk hand In hand down this very difficult palth: we have a goal to achieve. Working together I feel we canl do so for the very. very best interests of the future of this country and of tile world.
Date: 1983-11-04
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

This is the Most applause tile gentleman has gotten since he went out thle back door of thle Alamo: is that correct?
Date: 1983-11-07
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the bill H.R. 2479. as amended. is to amend the act incorporating the Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co.. to provide that the number of the directors is to be fixed by the companys bylaws with a minimum of three and to further provide that the quorum for meetings of the board is to be a majority of the entire board. The present Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co.. was originally incorporated by act of Congress on March 3. 1869. as "The Masonic Mutual Relief Association of the District of Columbia." That act has been amended through the years to reflect the changing needs of the company. The provisions of the act concerning the number of directors and the quorum required for Its meetings are now set out in section 3 of that act and provide for a membership of 21 with a quc?-um of 12. The only changes made in .he restatement of that section in this bill is to provide that the company may fix the number of its directors in Its bylaws with a minimum of three and that a majority of its entire board is required for its meetings. This bill was the subject of a subcommittee hearing on May 12. 1983. At that hearing. the witness appearing in behalf of the company stated that Acacia was chartered by a special act of Congress on March 3. 1809. under the name of "Masonic Mutual Relief Association of the District of Colunibias and that at the time Acacia was chartered. there was no general corporation law in existence In the District of Columbia under which it could have been .incorporated. Acacias charter has been amended by Congress nine times. the last of such amendments occurring in 1932. H.R. 2479 makes several changes in section 3 of Acacias charter. At the present time Acacia is required to have a minimum of 21 directors. The company pointed out to the commnittee that this is an exceptionally large number of directors by modern corporate standards. Acacia believes it could operate more efficiently with a smaller and more active board of directors. Under the bill. the exact number of directors will continue to be fixed by thle bylaws. but shall be at least three. H.R. 2479 also reduces the number of directors required to constitute a quorum from 12 to a simple majority and gives Acacia the option of not fillIng a vacancy on Its board of directors except to meet the requirement as to the minimum number of directors. At the hearing the committee was advised that the amendments have. been approved by Acacias board of directors with the request that Congress adopt the necessary enabling legislation. The District of Columbia Insurance Department has no objection to the bill. The committee has concluded on the basis of thle facts presented at the hearing. the amended bill should be considered favorably.
Date: 1983-11-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. in conclusion. let me say that we will be offering from the committee an amendment by Mr. HARKIN related to the concerns. the legitimate concerns. of the beef and pork producers.
Date: 1983-11-08
Speaker: WON PAT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on October 9. 1983. the people of Guam and many Members of this body lost a great and true friend with the passing of former Congressman Wayne Norviel Aspinall. who died at his home In Palisade at the age of 87. I am very pleased that my colleague. Congressman RAY KOGOVSEK. who now represents the part of Colorado which formerly was represented by Mr. Aspinall. has taken this special order to permit us tinie to eulogize this fine human being. I came to know Congressman Aspinall early In the 1950s during my frequent trips to Washington as Speaker of the Guam Legislature to lobby In Congress for my people. Later. when Congressman Aspinall began what was to be a 14year reign as chairman of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I had many opportunities to work closely with him on matters pertaining to Guam. In particular. he was very knowledgable about Guam and other U.S. ternities. having visited those areas. and in part. this was due to the presence on Anmerican Samoa. and later Guam. of his oldest son. Owen. But his keen and seemingly neverending interest in territorial matters stemmed more from a genuine concern over our welfare and a willingness to promote our political and economic wellbeing. He was by nature a fiscal conservative and more often than not we spent our time discussing flow the Islands spent their Federal dollars in ways which was not always to the liking of tile chairman. He stood beside us. however. during good times and lean times and with his consummate legislative skills became the foremost congressional advocate of permitting Guam and the Virgin Islands to elect their own Governors. In 1972. Chairman Aspinall again joined with a hardy band of his colleagues to successfully urge Congress to establish the office of congressional Delegate to Congress. Unfortunately. I never enjoyed the honor of actually serving in Congress with Wayne Aspinall. who was defeated for reelection in the 1972 primary campaign. I deeply missed that opportunity to serve under a man whom I regarded as a great and powerful leader and a man who was a true friend of my island. Not too long after I came to Congress I was surprised with a visit from Mr. Aspinall who took a look at my new office in the Cannon House Office Building and remarked how far Guam had progressed In its political development. True to his character. he never mentioned his own political problems but rather offered his support and blessings on my new congressional career. My only regret is that I never had the opportunity to return thle countless favors Wayne Aspinall did for my people and for me personally. While speaker of the legislature. I was proud to have led the drive to name an important street after the chairman that I hope for years to come. Aspinall Street. will serve as a reminder of the contributions this wonderful man madic to the peoples of the territories. Thank you.e
Date: 1983-11-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. n his is a commitment the committee a iade to the producers of cattle and ork. and this is our fulfillment of the d ommitment. t
Date: 1983-11-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would like to state to the gentleman that we have carefully studied and analyzed the gentlemans amendment. We find it to be a constructive amendment and we have no objection to it and would accept it on our side.