macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1986-06-04
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not intend to take the 5 minutes. I am hoping that the debate now probably will come to an end. Everybody knows what the issue here is. Very frankly. I think all the Members of the House on the floor and off the floor if they are going to vote on this have made their decisions as to the importance of the UDAG Program. but let us look to practicalities alike. As chairman of the full committee I have to deal with practicalities. The practicalities. like this. are that a Member of the other distinguished body has made it very clear that he wants this section of this bill. if nothing else were in the bill. and if he does not get it there will be no further FHA or VA extender according to that gentleman and there will be no tax bill. because he is going to filibuster the tax bill until they get a housing bill. They are coming out with a hobising bill in the other body. It will have this exact section in it.. So we have had a nice erudite discussion. but everybody knows how they are going to vote. I say let us get to the vote. Let us defeat this amendment so that we can go over with the other body in a conference on the housing bill and do something for the economy of the Nation and housing in this Nation. because all of this is an exercise in futility. You know. Don Quixote said it. tilting at the windmill. Boy. we have seen that right here and now.
Date: 1986-06-04
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would ask the gentleman to help my memory a little bit. It seems to me the gentleman came to me a year or two ago. was it on the Community Development Block Grant to his district.
Date: 1986-06-04
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. reserving the right to object. I would like to know If the gentleman would allow me to participate a little in this debate with him if we give him more time.
Date: 1986-06-04
Speaker: ALAN CRANSTON (democrat)
Chamber: S
State: California

and also Representative RICHARD SHELBY of Alabama. I understand there will not be any runoff in Alabama. I also congratulate Mr. John Roehrich of Iowa. Mr. President. if I have any time remaining. I ask unanimous consent that I may reserve it throughout the day.
Date: 1986-06-05
Speaker: GEORGE M. WHITE (democrat)
Chamber: S

FAIA. Architect of the Capitol. Washington. DC. DEAR Ma. WHITE: Thank you for your recent letter regarding Public Law 99229. Under that statute. the Secretary of Transportation and the Architect of the Capitol have joint responsibility to conduct. a study and make recommendations to Congress regarding an appropriate use of the site in question. I have appointed Mr. Ray Karam. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. as my representative in this endeavor. I appreciate your support for the Departments redevelopment plans for Union Station. and share your desire for the successful completion of the project. With best wishes. Sincerely.
Date: 1986-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture may have permission to sit during the 5minute rule on today and tomorrow.
Date: 1986-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield. I was assured that it was. I was advised that he has been notified. I cannot personally attest to it.
Date: 1986-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture may be allowed to sit during the 5minute rule on today and tomorrow.
Date: 1986-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I join the gentleman from New York and add to his words of commendation to the gentleman for his persistence in working on this endeavor. and for his assistance to us to incorporate rural America into any progress that comes to all Americans and that we bring it down into the countryside. I had a concern -in one of the areas of the bill where we were interpeting. incorrectly I now admit. that you had criteria that the population must be decreasing. and we find ourselves. with many areas of rural America where "the .poverty is increasing but. unfortunately. also the population. We found ourselves with population growth not declining. but yet the same degree of concern as to poverty and the need for jobs. I understand. and in a closer reading of the legislation. that it is either one or the other. So if you fit into the income bracket. then the population is not effective or does not affect what I was concerned with. Is my understanding correct?
Date: 1986-06-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. I thank the gentleman and I wish him well and will support his endeavor with the rest of the legislation.
Date: 1986-06-12
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. reserving the right to object. I would like to say that I have discussed this matter with my counterpart in the other body and he. too. agrees to this particular date. We felt that because of the 4th of July recess it would have been unwise to authorize it for a shorter period of time. Why these shortterm extensions? Let us be very. very clear. The shortterm extensions are so as to allow us to hopefully get together with the other body. now that we have adopted this legislation in the House. they are going to adopt legislation in the Senate within the very near future. We are working toward a conference in the almost immediate future. So for that reason. I shall not object and I am happy that this is the date that is being chosen. because otherwise we might not have any extender accepted all the way through. This requires not only action by the House but the other body as well.
Date: 1986-06-17
Speaker: ST GERMAN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. on this vote. rollcall No. 168. my attention was diverted at the time I voted. By mistake or through distraction. I cast a "nay" vote. whereas I should have cast a "yea" vote. Subsequently I was called to the phones. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed in the permanent RECORD to reflect a "yea" vote on rollcall No. 168.
Date: 1986-06-17
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision. Regulation and Insurance of the House Banking Committee may have permission to sit during the 5-. minute rule on Thursday. June 19. 1986. for consideration of H.R. 4701. the Financial Institutions Emergency Acquisitions Amendments of 1986. . This has been cleared with the ranking minority member. Mr. WYLIE.
Date: 1986-06-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in support of H.R. 1785. the Military Chaplains Faith Balance Act. This bill addresses the serious imbalance in the representation of various religious faiths among chaplains of the Armed Forces of the United States. It does so by accomplishing three goals. First. the bill would instruct the Secretary of Defense to request appropriate leaders of underrepresented faiths to meet the needs of members of the Armed Forces of those faiths. Second. it would accept clergy members of underrepresented faiths for appointment in the Armed Forces as they become available without regard to otherwise applicable numerical limitations. And third. it would consider ordering to active duty reserve members of the Armed Forces who are designated as chaplains in order to aid in alleviating the faith imbalance. One of the keystones of our Government since the heydays of our Founding Fathers has been the right to religious freedom. In order to be free. however. there must be ministry. This bill would ensure the exercise of these religious freedoms.
Date: 1986-06-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I rise to commend the chairman and the members of the Appropriations Committee for the excellent work they have done in this endeavor. I know how difficult it is to work in a conference and in an area that has so many problems as the supplemental appropriation bill. We still have objections basically. contrary to the language of the rules. that infringes on the Appropriations Committee. but this is not the time nor the place. nor the vehicle. to raise those objections. and we will not. There are some technical amendments in disagreement that would not relate to aiding the farmer that we will object to at the proper time or discuss. at least. at the proper time. but the need of the American agricultural sector of rural America is such that we must do everything that we can to help. even if it requires compromise. as we are willing to do today. to compromise those very important areas that for us and very technical areas for us in the Agriculture Committee. but we appreciate the delicate position in which the Appropriations Committee found itself. I am certain that they did the best that they could under the circumstances. Having some of the areas that were objectionable to the White House resolved in a way that this House. as I am informed by my distinguished colleague. the ranking member. the gentleman from Massachusetts. that it is now agreeable to the White House in this form. we would not want In any way to detract from that agreement. Therefore. we support and I personally support the conference report and I am appreciative of the work that has been done. We will Impose our jurisdictional items at other times when the time is proper and when we do not interfere with something as positive as this Is and it is helpful and needed for rural America. I thank the gentleman for allowing me the time.
Date: 1986-06-24
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I. too. would like to make a point. very briefly. I can see where. on occasion. there is a necessity to legislate on an appropriations bill. when the authorizing committees have not acted. In this instance the authorizing committee did indeed act in a very timely fashion. The vote has been held. The bill is over in the Senate. I have been assured of the fact that the Senate will be entertaining a housing bill. in the very immediate future. They just have to get rid of the tax bill. So the reason we usually have for legislating In this manner on appropriations bills does not exist in this instance. For that reason. I do hope we can vote against the acceptance of this amendment in disagreement.
Date: 1986-06-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. and I might mention to my colleagues that the gentleman has made valuable contributions In the InterParliamentary Group and also here. I appreciate the fact that he has mentioned it because when a friend is In trouble. It is not right to tell them. "Well. your President is a crook." or "This fellow is a crook." They need help and they need constructive help. I have seen many areas of cooperation. I mentioned one. that salinity problem. and we are cooperating in many other endeavors. But what will the Central American nations that we are trying to win to our side. if we call it that. who want our friendship. what will the South American nations that need our help and admire our leadership. admire our systemone of them once called it"this intricate. mysterious thing called democracy that seems to work so well in the United States." That is what we are trying to instill in some of these people beyond our borders. But to be calling every official. or to be challenging their veracity. or their morals. or their ability to function in Government is no way to treat a friend and is no way to treat an ally. I would hope that our colleagues would take heed of what we are trying to do here in that here we have a friend. here we have an ally. Yes. we have had problems. Yes. we have had very serious problems. We went to war. We Invaded Mexico and we took twothirds of their territory. and now when they are down on their knees. possibly going lower. we should not be leveling accusations at them. We should help in a fair and constructive way.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I take this time to oppose the amendment. and hopefully I can give my colleagues on the floor and those colleagues that are listening to me elsewhere a Justifiable reason for opposing this amendment. I begin with myself. personally. not my congressional district. not my political career. but myself as a father of two young men that are serving in the Navy as officers. I do hope the Members will forgive me for the personal reference. but it is very important. I have a son who is an officer in the Navy as a doctor. a surgeon. I have one who is in the Mediterranean on a missile cruiser that challenged Mr. Qadhafi and crossed the "line of death." I speak for them. Second. if you will pardon the personal reference. when I was 17 years old. I joined the Navy and served 18 or 19 months in the Navy toward the end of World War II. Ever since then I have had this involvement with the Navy. that I have become in my own sense. in my own sphere. among my peers in my district. somewhat of an expert on the Navy. This Is what we are discussing today: Will we forget Pearl Harbor? Not the Japanese and not the involvement of another country. but where our ships were. Where they were located and how it was such a disastrous point of time for our naval protection of the security of this Nation. Do we want that. or would we allow that to happen again? Mr. Chairman. this is where the 600ship Navy theory or concept came about. and this is where the concept of this home port and spreading out where the ships are. how they are protected. how they could come into flotillasand I do not think I am divulging any military secrets. but my boy that is out in the Mediterranean sailed from Florida. Some of his flotilla came from all of the eastern shore. and somehow they met out in the midAtlantic. and they went to the Mediterranean. and that is where they are now. Can we be so provincial. can we be so selfish to say. "No. I want them all here. I want them all there. Yes. its good for my political career. Yes its good for the region"? I think that we are beyond that. Mr. Chairman. we should not be discussing this issue here. That should be a concept and a part of military strategy that should not be discussed here. The funds are appropriated. and we have a sayso as to how we operate the Navy. but the technical concepts by the experts I think should not even be debated by we. the political arm. the Congress. we the representatives of the people. Main Street. Mission. TXwe cannot discuss the technical aspects of how we are going to disburse the Navy. We cannot be selfish to the extent that we will impose. forgive me. our political needs of where we are going to place the Navys ships. Somehow the basic interest and the national security have to supersede what we do here. from the technical. concise expertise of those who know that area. Yes. we have the ultimate yea or nay. but we really do not have the expertise. I would take my expertise from two sons.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I take my expertise not from the Pentagon. not from the Navy. but from two sailors who are telling me what is best for the Navy. When they ask. what is best for the Navy they are asking what is best for this country. One of them is out there in the Mediterranean. and he tells me "We need to be dispersed." 0l 1500 We need the Iowa in Corpus Christi. He does not care about what the economic impact in Corpus Christi is. how many jobs. how much housing we need. how we displace people from housing. He is thinking maybe. he is thinking United States of America. That is what he is thinking about. Now forgive me for being personal and deviating to this point. but that is where I think we should take our cues from. the fellow sitting out there in the Mediterranean challenging Mr. Qadhafis line of death. Now will this take money from the farmers? No. It will not take money from the farmers. Will this take money from housing? No. it is not going to take money from housing. Will this take money from any of the welfare programs? No. it is not going to take money from them. We are confusing the issue. The issue is the United States of America. the security of the naval forces and my boys security on a ship in the Mediterranean. That is what I am discussing here today.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman would allow me to reclaim my time. there are no targets. Ten bombs will do it. You cannot segregate New York. San Francisco. Corpus Christi. Oklahoma City. Chicago. I mean. I say it with due respect to my friend. this is nonsense. Ten bombs will do us all in.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The fact is that you have to disperse. What I am talking about is the entity. that in the nuclear age if a nuclear war is unleashed. forget it. Later we are going to vote on the conventional war in a very localized area. That is where the Navy comes in. That is where the battle wagons come in. I just heard. it was on a talk show. in sort of a ludicrous way that someone said. "I ran into this Lebanese and he was so upset about New Jersey. He says. what is wrong with the Garden State of New Jersey? And he kept saying New Jersey. NewJersey. New Jersey. It was because the New Jersey caused consternation and changed the tone of the war in Lebanon." The battleship he was talking about. that is what we are talking about. the concept of refurbishing the battle wagons. the concept of spreading them out. I have been to Norfolk. I have been to Salerno. I have been to Florida. I have been to San Diego. In a conventional war. forget it. In Florida they have got 20 ships in a 1squaremile turnaround basin.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. no. The gentleman is all wrong. The concept is that you meet en route. You cannot have them all in one place. you have to separate them all in different places. The tender is here. the carrier is here. the missile cruiser is here. and they combine en route to a strategic point. That is what happened. that is what they were doing. and that is what needs to be done.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. the gentleman is more than expert in that area. But if you are all going to the same place. the steaming time is not that relevant if you are all going the same way to join at a point. What I am trying to say is that the basic integrity of the ability of the U.S. Navy in a conventional operation. in a conventional operationI make that very clear. the strategic import of the U.S. Navy is that they are dispersed in such a way that conventionallyand we know where the submarines are. We know how far they have come. They have come into the basic basin. That is not important on this issue because that is a fact of life. that is a reality we have to live with. The important thing is. do we have them in strategic areas?
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I apologize for taking too much time. But my colleagues who are arguing about the concept are dividing into two segments. those who are provincial. which I respect because I would be likewise. and those who are arguing against the concept who would basically have somewhat not enough knowledge about the issue. Now if I were in San Diego. I would not want to take my ships to Washington or someplace. That is basic. I can agree with that. I can sympathize with this. But I care more about one ensign in the Mediterranean and how he can do his job and how he can protect the security of this Nation than where the hell the ships are docked. That is the basic thing that I am talking about today. not whether there are going to be enough for Corpus Christi or San Diego or Washington or New York. One ensign means more to me than anything we discuss here. How are we going to protect him? How are we going to give him the ability to protect this Nation? The integrity and the security and the life and the liberty of this Nation. that is what we are going to be discussing later today. That is my issue. We are not taking money from here. from the farmers. from housing. from increased welfare. we are talking about how we can make a sailor in the Navy represent his country to the best of his ability. And that. my dear friend. is where the item lies. that we disperse them all. that we give them the security necessary in conventional war. that we give them the ability to protect us here in this Congress. in this Nation.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. The question. as my colleague says. is. Are we going to vote the best interests of this country. as the experts of the Navy tell us. as the nonexpert lowly ensign in the Navy tells me? Are we going to vote for that. or are we going to make a.political decision that we are going to do the political thing at. this point in time. or are we going to put the integrity. the security. the welfare. the future of this Nation in jeopardy. as the experts tell us? The question is. Do we vote for ourselves or do we vote for the sailors who tell us this is what we need?
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the gentleman and I were at the same subcommittee hearing. and the Navy in fact asserted that that is an accurate statement in that they have in line or could refurbish minesweepers. That is not the issue. The issue is not $1 million or $2 million or this or that. I know where the Senators from New York State are coming from. and I know where the Senators from North Carolina and Virginia are coming from. That is what I was talking about. separating the political from the real need.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman. I can appreciate the gentlemans concern. But my concern is that I think we are deviating. The gentleman does not think that our Navy can sanitize? I would be worried about Warsaw Pact ships. They are only coming in for grain. I think that at this time it is not really within the realm of reality that they would have nuclear weapois.
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I do not agree with that. because I think you can sanitize a port without the minesweeper. The gentleman is getting into a concept of World War II. We have the ability now to santize and to detect and to deter. We are not talking about them coming in and mining the harbor and that kind of thing?
Date: 1986-06-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I want to tell the gentleman from San Diego one of my boys is in San Diego. so my interest is not provincial. And to the others on the Atlantic. one of my boys is at Mayport. He is now out in the Mediterranean. so it is not provincial. I sympathize with the gentleman on the provincial aspect. but I am trying to get to the national security aspect.