macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. for purposes of debate only. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon . II14708 May 23. 1984 1 CO
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for his very excellent statement. Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania .
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the We are trying to provide essential gentleman lot his excellent contribu- services to our citizens. lion. We are trying to do these things Mr. Speaker. for purposes of debate without a strong economic base. and only. I yield 2 minutes to the gentle- without the Investment capital that is man from New York . necessary for the work ahead.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Spe to conclude the debate on this si the aisle. I yield such time as he consume to the gentleman from nois . the distingul minority leader.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. I yield back the bawance of my time. and I move the previous question on the illon10i.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revisc and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct the conferees just agreed to.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I think probably the most significant language in the amendment Is the prohibition on the use of American force except to meet a clear and present danger of hostile attack upon the United States. its territories. and possession. For the benefit of all of us here in the Chamber. and in terms of potential legislative history. as to what the intent of this body is. what all would that include? For example. let me give you a hypothetical. If the Soviets were to make a major introduction of force in El Salvador to overthrow that Government. or to take some very forward kind of action like that. would we define under this provision of the amendment. would we define that as no potential threat against the United States. its territories. or possessions?
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Why. then. if that is the case. the question comes up about its surrogates. What if the Cubans were to launch a major force attacking the Government of El Salvador to overthrow it? Would we view that as a threat to the United States. its territories. or possessions?
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. what the gentleman is saying. notwithstanding this language about Congress declaring war or enacting specific authorization for such introduction or such introduction is necessary. that that last phrase. "or such introduction as necessary." gives the President the latitude to make this decision. not Congress.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. I see no reference in this except with respect to congressional action to restrain the commitment of military force in this area. and that is why I wanted to get a clarification. because there is no reference to the executive branch.
Date: 1984-05-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. I appreciate that clarification. because in reading that initial paragraph. subsection (1) there. there was no reference to the Commander in Chiefs powers and responsibilities and the gentleman has clarified the point to my satisfaction and I thank him for that.
Date: 1984-05-24
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my distinguished leader for yielding. I do not want to take time here. but again what he has just said certainly is an expression of a respnuMay 24. 1.984 sibie position by this body. If you spend the money. you have got to raise tite debt ceiling to cover it. Orce more I would submit to you Ihe National Taxpayers Union rating. This rating rates us on spending. period. It does not make subjective evaluations as to good versus bad spending. If you want to find that 218 magic number that is a majority. just start at the bottom in terms of the biggest spenders in this body. and all the names are here for one and all to see. and you all should have a copy in your office. Oi 1030 Those 218 Members have the responsibility to cast this responsible vote. They are the ones who made it necessary.
Date: 1984-05-24
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I rise in support of the gentlemans amendment. I commend him for his efforts. I spent approximately 12 years in college and graduate school studying U.S. and Latin American history. taught it for approximately 7 years after that. I have had the great privilege of traveling to every continent of the globe and. in addition to that. maintaining an ongoing interest in foreign policy and foreign afairs. For all of that. I must tell you I am absolutely humbled and in awe sitting here with 434 Secretaries of State. sitting here with people who are prepared to rewrite the Constitution with respect to powers of the Commander in Chief and sitting here with people who are determined on an ad hoc. 1lybythe-*eatofyourpants basis to consume tis much time trying to write the foreign policy under a Department of Defense authorization for the United States of America. And I can only imagine the great glee in the politburo watching this spectacle. and also the fear and trepidation on the part of the heads of state and governments that are friendly to the United States and depending upon this country for leadership. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1984-06-04
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

The gentleman mentioned my name. I want to point out that I am sure that everybody in my district would unanimously agree to put 700.000 acres of wilderness near Portland. I know they did that. I support that. The problem here is--
Date: 1984-06-04
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I heard the gentleman say that and I take issue with that. It is likely that 40 percent are. I will give you the 40 percent. leaving me 60 percent to reduce this bill by. very gladly. and that will revive the communities that I have been talking about that are injured when you take away the very good timber that surrounds them in the small communities in eastern Oregon. So I would suggest that a fair compromise would have been to distribute evenly between our five districts in the State of Oregon this wilderness. But we have not done that. This Member and the people I represent and their futures are at the behest of those in other parts of our State. and that has been our problem for a very long time. The gentleman knows of which I speak.
Date: 1984-06-04
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. The only point I was trying to make is here we have a confrontational problem within our State. and this is a little turf battle. But it is a problem that exists because there are those of us who make a living on the land and from the land in the eastern and southern parts of the State. and there are those within the cities who look upon that land as theirs as well. It is Federal land. but as a recreational. vacational kind of atmosphere. There is no doubt that the gentleman represents exactly the situation. But we have gone confrontationally for a long time about that issue. and here we are again. It is the same issue all over again.
Date: 1984-06-04
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute. The gentleman mentioned my named and mentioned part of my debate. so I believe I should have a change to clear the record. 13 there objection to 1 minute?
Date: 1984-06-04
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the Speaker and I thank the chairman. I want to reiterate the point. and I do not think the chairman knows about this situation. there are 40.000 acres of dead lodgepole pine in the north unit in the North Fork of the John Day. That impedes the fishery. impedes management of big game and I am sure that the gentleman is not familiar with that. It is a fact. it is there. it is a loss. it is waste. it is gone with wilderness designation.
Date: 1984-06-06
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of portions of the agriculture appropriation for the 1985 fiscal year. It almost seems. however. that we should refer to this legislation as the domestic food programs appropriation. for $14.7 billion is earmarked for that areawith the belief that a supplemental appropriation will be necessary. Agriculture programs are funded at $10.9 billion. I certainly do not begrudge financial assistance to domestic feeding programs. but simply point out that the majority of the appropriation for the Department of Agriculture goes toward consumer oriented programs. I do. however. have some concern about continuing the practice of partial year funding of the important food programs. While protecting the budget in the short term. this only puts off the inevitable. I would like to provide my strong support for the $487 million going toward agricultural research. and in particular. speak in favor of the speclil research grants for continued study of TCK SMUT and the steep soil erosion program. It is my hope that some of the ARS funds will be used toward continued varietal research at Oregon State University. Although we currently have a shortterm domestic oversupply of wheat. it would be shortsighted to fail to continue the varietal research now being conducted. If. as expected. Federal funds are shifted into basic research at private universities. the result will be a loss to land grant institutions that have programs in placeoften in conjunction with private and State fundIng. This work will better enable our farmers to overcome future obstacles and to feed a hungry world. Research conducted today is often applied 10 to 20 years in the future. Mr. Chairman. -I believe that. farmers and ranchers. perhaps more than anyone. have a large stake in reducing the Federal deficit which stokes the fires of high interest rates. I have long felt that the best possible farm program would be balancing the budget. and providing a domestic policy that promotes economic stability. I am therefore pleased with OMB Director Stockmans letter to the subcommittee. on which Congresswoman SMITH reported earlier. that this bill Is generally consistent with the discretionary program spending freeze that is an essential component of the deficit downpayment plan pending before Congress.
Date: 1984-06-06
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. So the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Date: 1984-06-07
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. at the appropriate time. an amendment will be offered by Mr. HOWARD of New Jersey to encourage a national drinking age. I am in support of this amendment. Given the nationwide concern over drunk driving it seems timely that we consider this amendment to restrict Federal highway funding to States refusing to raise their drinking age to 21. I have favored this concept for some time and have cosponsored similiar legislation by Congressman PORTER. In my State. Illinois. we face a serious "borderhopping" problem when young adults cross the border to take advantage of less restrictive drinking age laws. The result has been the loss of many of our most precious national assetour children. It is incumbent upon us to convince the various States that the severity of this problem demands national attention. This amendment provides a more effective means of addressing the issue than mandating a national drinking age.*
Date: 1984-06-15
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. in response to my colleague. the gentleman from Iowa. I would be happy to yield some of my time. if the gentleman v ould like to respond to the issue that we were just discussing first. I will happily yield to him to do that.
Date: 1984-06-15
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am happy for the gentlemans comments. I might just inject one other comment along the same lines. II 5937 I tun sure till of us rememiber when .1ay 8lr0101nn w10 att i e Georral Rievi s:i Adni:trat ion alil .1n audit reIealid tlt Ihat oeili Mall agency in a .inl- yvar id stolun anywahere ron 18.b io .1.100 million of tacxplaiy(r dollars. I talki to .Jay Solomon about I hat Pirwrd s I I ld nW thIit I wa coni.ird It hat the problem with ith(..-.A Ili Iiit one sinnil ae nevy v ase ndernit0 to vVry diepartmint of GovernI haiw nuo :.pieial wii.idoi or lioilit in vrily or reftite that statemti il. but I did :.i a report at the 1tme clIteniding Itht h ha we put all of the General Avcounting ()ffitc- auditors to woirk audittig jialt that years budget for hf-:iil Ii. idiniaition. and wilfare. when tIh y wire still coihild. that it would hi(. taken Ihim appIroximntly 20 yvar.. to compelet the aludit.. I think that iighiigiits one of the trioblem is We have. ThI( gentleman Irom lowa im. doing diligent work In ex*rl*i sine ani oversiglit responsibility. which ii one of tilie most important aspet s of our job here. Several years ar1. I was the ranking minority ininmher oin the Oversight. 8ubeominit. e( of tli Committer on Ways and Meins. We had responsihility for Sorial Sfecurity. medicare. welfare. tr ade. trLiff. and customs. and all taxreilated nittrs. On the Oversight Huhreomnnittle. we only had three fuilltilimeinve:.tigntors. In short. what I Fun suggesting is that we ire niot fulfilling our oversight ro.lionsibilities any longe r in this body. It is absolutely impossible to do it wit IiH te resources that we have. and for* t hat reason. frankly. I think it would be prudent for the House of R(presentatives to contemplate approprinting the first year after an election for a 2year period and then devote iach election year. since we end up doing a lot of political posturing on both sides of the aisle in election years. not for voting appropriation hills or adding legislation to the books. hut reserve that second year exclusively for oversight. with a view to hopelully verifying whether agencies and departments that we have voted money to spend are indeed doing the job that. we want them to do and with the kind of diligence that the gentleman from Iowa has exercised in this case that we have discussed this afterHOOn.
Date: 1984-06-15
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I have been somewhat surprised that some of our colleagues who do prefer spending that I would view as excessive in social categories have not Jumped with alacrity to embrace the Grace Commission recommendations. Those recommendations were designed to make economles where there is simply bad business practice or duplication or inefficiency in Government. and tiere is a way in which we can all get on the same bandwagon and we .ca reduce total levels of expenditure without getting into substantive questions. policy questions about some of the programs before this body. The ratings follows:
Date: 1984-06-15
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today.
Date: 1984-06-22
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

changed his ote from "yea" to "nay " Messrs. TAUKE. RINALDO. EVANS of Iowa. and ZSCHAU changed their votes from "nay" to "yea." So the resolution was agreed to. The resulk of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Date: 1984-06-26
Speaker: NT EVENS (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I ask unaniious consent that there now be a poriod for the transaction of routine morning business during which Sena(tors may speak for not to exceed 5 mninuites each. Tihie IPESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. it is so ordered.
Date: 1984-06-26
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman. first to congratulate him for an outstanding job on this bill. and I know that his education at Oregon State University gave him the background necessary to come back with this fine piece of legislation.
Date: 1984-06-26
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. section 319 provides that the Administrator shall not convene a management conference if he determines that there exists a management program for the estuarine zone with sufficient authority to address the purposes of this section. This language is important because it allows States that have taken action to protect their estuarine zone will not be required to submit to a management conference as envisioned by the provisions of section 319. I would like to point out what Oregon has done to protect the estuarine zone of the Columbia River. Oregon was one of the first States in the Nation to develop comprehensive landuse planning and to incorporate the Federal Coastal Zone Management resource protection programs and EPA water quality standards into planning law. The Columbia River Estuary Study Team (CREST] has developed landuse plans for local jurisdictions within the boundaries of the Columbia River estuary. Oregons landuse laws require impact assessments to determine if proposed uses are compatible with the resource capabilities of the estuary and specifically prohibit water quality and resource degradation. protect riparian habitat and freshwater marshes and lakes adjacent to the estuary. and require local governments to incorporate EPA standards into their Stateapproved landuse plans. The Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 addresses the threat of hydroelectric development in the Columbia River to anadromous fish and has as its policy "to protect. mitigate. and enhance fish and wildlife resources of the Columbia River and tributaries affected by hydroelectric development and operations." The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife must sign off on all fill and removal permits. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issues waterquality certificates for dredge and fill permits and issues NPDES wastedischarge permits. Oregons strategic water planning bill is a pilot project to develop management plans that protect fish. water quality. and all beneficial uses of water within Oregons river basins. Through Oregons State Forest Practices Act. Oregon has accomplished significant improvement to water quality associated with forest management and has implemented EPAapproved "Best Management Practices" to minimize adverse impacts on water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution within Oregons forests. In addition. the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is a powerful and effective tool used by Federal and State fish and wildlife resource agencies to ensure proper review of permits within the estuary or river system. Mr. Chairman. it is my understanding that with all of these protections for the estuarine zone of the Columbia River. the Columbia River would probably not be covered by the provisions of section 319s management conferences.
Date: 1984-06-27
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the conference report and simultaneously want to salute my colleagues who have labored long and hard. especially in this conference. to produce this tax measure. which is an lmnportant ingredient of what the adminstration asked in the form of a deficit down payment. However. it seems to me that this is deja vu. We passed in 1981 the administrations ERTA bill. the largest tax cut in the history of this country. and I think it contributed mightily to the economic recovery that we have been enjoying since that time. But in 1982 1 remember the assurances we got. We were going to get a $3reduction in spending for every dollar Increase In taxes. That was the TEFRA bill. What we got was anywhere from $1.14 to $1.67 increase in spending for every dollar increase in taxes at that time. Then in 1983 we passed the gasoline tax. and In 1984 here we have another tax bill before us and %e ar being promied the prospvrt itn 19115 of another major tax increase. It seems ito me that tihis is kind of like our repent ed votes on hiking the debt ceiling. The practical conse(luence of t odays action is to put more burdens on our already overtaxed (iviens. especially those in the middle income aind lower income brackets. Paul Craig Roberts had at titeresting article in ih(e Wall Street )ourznal last fall. He pointed out that ERITA was a $900 billion tax cut over a 5year period. but he noted that we could subtract $660 billion fromn that as a result of social security tax increases over that period. and bracket creep until we get indexation. Now we are dlown to a $300 billion tax cut. TEFRA was $229 billion over a 5year period. That brings us down to $71 billion. The gas tax increse was $16 billion. That brings us down to $55 billion. This Is a $50 billion tax increase over 3 years. but if we add the next 2 yearn we can add roughly another $40 billion in tax increases. and that is before tie Social Security increases that ate mandated for 1938 and 1990. The problem is not addressin4 spending with tax increases. It is. 1:stead. getting this Chamber to reconnize that we have engaged in massive overspending and we still are not atdressing that problem with the action that we have taken to date. notwithstanding the commendable work of the Committee on Ways and Means in addressing what was considered an ingredient of it. What we have. in effect. is $12 billion in reduced spending right now and $50 billion in increased taxes. I submit to my colleagues that I did not come to Congress to raise taxes and yet. sad to say. that becomes an increasing preoccupation of this Chamber. We are yet to face up to the real problem confronting this country. I have not seen the deficits go down with tax increases.
Date: 1984-06-28
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentlewoman keeps referring to being trained in various skills as one of the criteria. with which I would have to agree. But on another facet of Ithat. wouldI( she not admit that certain people may be trained in certain skills and not master those skills. vehile ot hrs may be. and if they do master them. should they niot be rewarded for tie equal pay for equal work?
Date: 1984-06-28
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

It is not just hecause you are trained in certain skills. sorne people can master them. and I can take. for hisiance. maybe a heart specialist. and some heart specialists am better than other heart specialists. Or teachers may have a teaching diploma. hit some Leacheis are bet ttr than oter teachers. Does the gentlewoman not. agree to that?
Date: 1984-06-28
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

That may be the case. but as pointed out in subchapter 4. it states that there will Ie equal pay for substantially equal worth. I cannot understand why the gentlewoman finds fault witi that. Or does she find fault with that? Mrs. SCIlItUaDER. I am all for equal pay (Ir s ii)tiiiii fally tt(lial worth and comparable worth. Thliat. is what we are talking about. That is howV you compare the worth of different people. looking at the things required for that job classification and finding out if they can qualify. So I ho.. can talk (ie gent leain into withdrawing his amendimint. hecause I really think it takes our whole thrust. and sets it back 20 ycars. The pentletian would take its back to where we were in 1964. anti we want to be where we want to he in 1984. which is going to the roots of discrininalion and how somne of these classificatllons came about..