macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of our colleague from Ohio. who made reference to the fact that the Government of El Salvador was killing its own people. I was wondering if the gentleman could get into a specific there. I am not familiar that the Government has ordered the killing of any of the Salvadoran people. There have been human rights violations. in fact. egregious human rights violations. by people representing both sides of this conflict. But I am curious to know what Information the gentleman has of the Government killing its own people.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio first and then the gentleman from Iowa. Does the gentleman believe President Magana has ordered killings?
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I will concede that I think the evidence is compelling tht there are elements within the military that have committed atrocities. By the same token. we have gone through that same grievous experience ourselves with the My Lal incident. but that was never Government policy here. And I am curious to know if either of the gentlemen would care to indict President Magana for having been instrumental in ordering the murder of any Salvadoran citizen.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

In that same connection. as I say. we have had not the same magnitude of problem. but it has happened. And I think the gentlemans sweeping indictment of the Government of El Salvador really misrepresents the case. And I would agree with the gentleman that they obviously do not have the control of their military there that we have of our own military. and I think when Colonel Ochoa defied his own defense minister. that that was apparent. because that would be a courtmartial offense here. They do not have that kind of discipline and control within their military. But I do think it is a misstatement to attempt to indict the entire Government and. most especially. when there are many people who *have had very limited experience in democracy. as the gentleman knows. who have lived under dictatorships. the overwhelming majority of the last half century or better. and who are striving to make improvements and to get away from that sort of thing. Yet I think the gentleman from Ohio leaves the impression that this is standard operating procedure. that this is policy of the Government down there. and many reputable people within that Government who are striving to improve those conditions.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Well. the gentleman from Iowa knows that their legal system is totally different from our own. and I am not going to make any defense of it. I find it deplorable. too. But I think it is important to recognize that the parties who are under indictment or under investigation for killing the labor union leaders. as the gentleman knows. those individuals are in an ongoing trial process. and the same is true for those individuals who have been charged with having murdered the nuns and the laywomen who accompanied those nuns. And. as I say. this is. obviously. a very imperfect and distressing judicial system
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would respond to the gentlemans expression of anguish by saying that those elements within the military that most closely correspond to the values and ideals we have are those that received the greatest amount of training by the U.S. people. As a result. if you want to address that problem. I would strongly urge that you support the Presidents efforts at getting more of the people within their military trained properly by our people. and that involves going along. in my judgment. with the Presidential request for the very modest amount of money that he is asling for to attempt to pursue that objective. I agree. it is a very unprofessional military. And. in fact. I think that even in terms of tactics. they are people fundamentally trained in the conventional Warfare techniques. attempting to deal with a guerrilla type of insurgency. and there are. by our military advisers estimations. less costly ways in which you can wage that kind of conflict. both in terms of loss of life and resources and money. I think that means. though. that we have to have. probably. I was told by some of our people. somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 more trainers instead of the 37 that we have there right now. We need about 20 more. they estimated. In addition to that. they need training. experiences. perhaps in Panama or bring some of them up here to Fort Bragg and give them training at military installations in the United States.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I would simply remind my distinguished colleague from Iowa on this law and order question that certainly no country has historically placed any greater premium on law and order than we have here in the United States. Yet. sad to say. in spite of that. If you look at the crime statistics here in the United States. they are way in excess of the industrialized nations of the world. For all of our commitment. we have a very sorry track record in the United States.
Date: 1983-05-03
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am very grateful to the distinguished chairman as well as the ranking minority member from the State of Ohio. as well as the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. AUCorN. for all of their assistance in this effort and in achieving an agreement early on on a very technical change to the GarnSt Germain Depository Insurance Act. I want to join with the chairman and all of those who have spoken in favor of this legislation today. As the distinguished chairman has so accurately advised as to the specifics of the problem within the last years bill. I would simply add my support for the approval of this legislatioi. It is imperative. I think. that we insure: First. that intended financial institutions can benefit from the provisions in last years legislation. and second. that when the Federal Goverment comes to the aid of any institutions through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. the Federal Government does have priority over other creditors. This legislation will insure each of those intended actions and we hope they will be achieved. So. I therefore support my colleagues in this legislation and just add one thing. Mr. Speaker. to the discussion. The gentleman from New York . is concerned about the bond holders with respect to this legislation and I suggest the very purpose in passing this amendment is for those creditors of those institutions that may be as. sisted in surviving. So this is. in fact. assisting the bondholders of these institutions. That is its purpose. Mr. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the need for the technical legislation we are considering as S. 1011. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1982 (Public Law 320) initiated a
Date: 1983-05-03
Speaker: ROBERT P. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the chairmans emphasis of this point. May I interject in the RECORD as well. a letter from the FDIC dated May 3 to Mr. Jim Butera. National Association of Mutual Savings Banks. It is only one sentence. It says. "Dear Mr. Butera: In conjunction with our telephone conversation of this date. this is to confirm that a a practical matter only two mutual savings banks would be eligible for assistance under the provisions of S. 1011. 98th Congress." I would like to submit that in the RECORD:
Date: 1983-05-04
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the gentlemans substitute. I think part of the problem today has been generated by the faulty language contained in this report. just as there has been obviously faulty language in the resolution. itself. thus we have been compelled to amend it. But that word "mandate" technically involves a formal order or command from a legal or official superior to an inferior. Quite obviously there is no way this Congress could. in any way mandate anything by that definition to the White House as a. coequal branch of Government. But I think it is certainly incumbent upon us to clarify any potential misunderstanding any I see no reason why any ofne would have any objection to the substitute offered by the gentleman in the well. I thank him for yielding.
Date: 1983-05-17
Speaker: PAT ROBERTS (republican)
Chamber: H

the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. are to be complimented for their efforts and their commitment to continue consideration of the necessary modifications in FIFRA legislation for the future.
Date: 1983-06-14
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I happened to be passing on the floor when I heard my distinguished colleague from Michigan make reference to the fact that this is Flag Day. I commend him for his remarks. I went to public schools on the south side of Chicago at a time when it was not yet a criminal offense to pray. So. we opened up each day with prayer. In addition to that we opened up with a pledge of allegiance to the flag and sang some patriotic anthem as well. It set a good tone for the day. I think when some of the young Philadelphia lawyers in classrooms started protesting that it was a violation of their rights to have to pledge allegiance to that flag they overlooked something very important. Our flag represents a sacrifice paid by every generation from the very first. people who shed blood. who gave their lives. that we would still be living in the freest society that mankind has ever known. My colleagues mentioned that that flag is the centerpiece of this Chamber: right above it are those famous words. "In God We Trust." Congress incorporated that sentiment as an ingredient of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag during the Eisenhower administration. Both the sacrifice of American patriots and trust in God warrant our allegiance and honor on this important day by more than a casual declaration that this is Flag Day and I commend my colleague for calling this to our attention.
Date: 1983-06-16
Speaker: JAMES H. MICHEL (republican)
Chamber: S

Deputy Assistant Secretary for InterAinerican Affairs. U.S. Department of State. Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. MICHEL: This refers to your recent lettef to me wherein you discussed the Department of State position regarding outstanding expropriation disputes of U.S. citizens with Panama and the circumstances under which Panama may not benefit by passage of the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It is my understanding that there is no question over the fact that the properties of Boston Panama Company and Citricos de Chiriqui. S.A. were taken by the Government of Panama and the United States citizen owners were never compensated. Furthermore. these two claims have been outstanding for over eight years. In your letter you state that. "if good faith efforts to resolve these disputes as they (Panamanians) priomised can no longer be expected." the Department would recommend against a Presidential waiver to include Panama as a beneficiary country. In view of the inordinate amount of time which has passed without Panama resolving these outstanding claims. I understand that if the Caribbean Basin Initiative legislation is passed and the two outstanding claims are not resolved. then the Department will not recommend a waiver for Panama under 102(b) and Panama will not be designated a beneficiary country. If your understanding is different from mine. I would appreciate your letting me know immediately. Very truly yours.
Date: 1983-06-16
Speaker: PAUL RODGERS (republican)
Chamber: S

General Counsel. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. ICC Building. Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. RODGERs: I know that your Association has no formal position on constructing the Clinch River Breeder Reactor but I hope you might give me guidance on the sorts of questions public utility commissions might have to proposals to increase utilities investment in Clinch River. As you know. the Department of Energy and the Breeder Reactor Corporation recently completed studies on how the utillties might be induced to increase their investment in the project (see the enclosed conclusions of the Breeder Reactor Project). The key idea emphasized in these studies is that the utilities should invest some $800 million more dollars now to secure the benefits of the electricity sales that will be made from the plants operation later. To encourage such investment. the studies suggest that the U.S. government guarantee that the Clinch River Project will be completed. that it will operate at projected capacity factors. and that its electricity will sell at projected prices. In addition. the studies suggest that the government offer the utilities enhanced tax benefits for investing in the project. Would the public utility commissions challenge the utilities if they came to ask permission to participate in such a scheme? If so. what sort of concerns might the commissions have? If you could write to us supplying answers to these questions. it would be much appreciated. My assistant. Henry Sokolski at 2248766 is working this issue. Please feel free to call him for additional background. With best regards. I am Sincerely yours.
Date: 1983-06-23
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. under the guise of the old radical "soak the rich" rhetoric that used to prevail in this body a generation ago. once more we are listening to some of the stale. same old arguments and they come from essentially the same radical quarters that obviously believe in the old ideology of tax and spend. The irony in this particular proposal. which represents almost a $38 billion tax increase over the next. 5 yearsand do not be confused about what this is all about. it is a tax increasethe irony is it comes right on the heels of the vote we had on the budget resolution. It is apparent the radicals still believe in spending and believe in continuing taxation of the already overtaxed American. who has been suffering from confiscatory levels of taxation. I do not think there is a respectable economist in the country today who supports the idea of massively raising taxes during a time of economic recovery. which we are experiencing right now. And most especially they recognize the foolishness of further taxing the productive middle class in this country. which has been ravaged over the past several years. because of inflation and the inability to enjoy the protection provided by indexation. which the same radical taxers wanted to go after in 1985. The middle class in this country. with adjusted gross income between $15.000 and $50.000. constitutes 45 percent of our population and at the present time. they are paying 60 percent of our total taxes. And it is that element which the Members who are proposing this cap want to assault. I urge my colleagues in this body. if you have compassion for hardworking Americans. if you really believe in economic recovery. to reject this Insane proposal.-
Date: 1983-06-30
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Reserving the right to object. Mr. Speaker. I will not object. but I merely wanted to take this opportunity to inform the House that the minority has no objection.
Date: 1983-06-30
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Reserving the right to object. Mr. Speaker. I will not object. but I wanted to inform the House that the mIhority unanimously supports this resolution.
Date: 1983-06-30
Speaker: VANDER JAGT (republican)
Chamber: H

Reserving the right to object. Mr. Speaker. I will not object. but I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. BIAGGI.
Date: 1983-07-20
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this is one of the most difficult moments in my life and it has been an unparalleled ordeal for my family. We pay for our sins in life and in making my peace I take comfort that our Lord promised me forgiveness 70 times 7. It is less easy for us to forgive ourselves or our brothers. but I have asked for and received the forgiveness of those I hurt most. my wife and my family. I have asked my friends and neighbors to forgive me as well. But. Mr. Speaker. I have not yet apologized to my colleagues in this body for the shame I have brought down on this institution. Before any action is taken. and regardless of the action this body takes. I want the Members to know that I am sorry and that I apologize to one and all. Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
Date: 1983-07-21
Speaker: HAMILTON BEGINS (republican)
Chamber: H

58TIH YEAR AS MINISTER Dr. Charles G. Hamilton of Monroe County began his 58th year of ministry this week. lie has averaged nine sermons. seven visits and 433 miles a week for those years. His 233 sermons the past year brought his total to 28.429 in 535 churches of 27 demoninations in 32 states and two foreign countries. 263 schools and colleges. 2.921 radio and television stations. 31 newspapers and magazines. including the Advertiser. 33 pamphlets and 12 books. We wish for Brother Hamilton and his devoted wife many more fruitful and happy years.
Date: 1983-07-27
Speaker: BILL BROOMFIELD (republican)
Chamber: H

the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. WHITEHURST. who is a member of the Intelligence Committee. the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. STUMP. who is a member of the Intelligence Committee. the gentleman from New York. Mr. SAM STRATON. who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services. and the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. SONNY MONTGOMERY. who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Each of the Members I have mentioned filed the identical same amendment at the same time that this initial amendment was filed. I would like to give just a little background as to how we arrived at the language in this amendment. which is a very sincere effort to stop our covert activity in Nicaragua. At the same time it is an effort to stop the Nicaragua Sandinistas in their activities in El Salvador and Honduras and any other place they might be planning to conduct their antigovernment activities. This amendment or an amendment similar to this was first offered in the Intelligence Committee as we markedup the bill in the very beginning. It was rejected. Following that..the concept of this amendment was kept alive through the efforts and the support of some Members on the Democratic side of the aisle andthe Republican side of the aisle and all those who were close to the issue in the administration. in the Central Intelligence Agency. and in the State Department. A number of meetings were conducted. beginning in the Situation Room at the White House. with Jim Baker presiding and a number of our Members attending. We moved our meetings eventually to the office of the majority leader here in the Capitol. again with a number of Members attending. and each of those Members on their own can tell us who they were if they want us to know. Basically. what this amendment does is very simple. We leave in the bill section 801 that the committee chairman. the gentleman from Massachusetts
Date: 1983-07-29
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I just want to say. Mr. Speaker. that I personally have been at this particular intersection. being a neighbor in the State of Oregon. I can attest to the fact that it is a very. very dangerous situation. particularly after you have been to Sparks. Nov.. and you are on you way home. your car is lighter. you are lighter. and I suggest to you that even as light as you may be. you are in great danger at this particular intersection. I would ask the House at this point to give particular attention to the gentlewomans request and the gentleman from Nevada. and recognizing the fact that this may not be tetally in line with all of the particular rules. the conference committee has acted and I assume a maJority of both House and Senate have acted. I would ask then that the gentlewomens request be given every possibility in the House.
Date: 1983-08-01
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the gentleman for being in the vanguard of this battle to cut off mostfavorednation status for Communist countrizs. I think the country in question on this resolution. Romanal. may in some respects. have a marginally better track record as far as observance of human rights. then many other Communist nations. And that is one of tie arguments that is perennially used in favor of MFNthat somehow we are leveraging these countries to act more civilized and more humane. For that reason supporters of MFN justify the use of U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize Indirectly and directly their economic development. especially their exports This. in turn. gives them a competitive advantage over freemarket countries. I think this is an outrage. One of the most outrageous things that every one of us experiences on the eve of these debates. is to be lobbied in our own offices by representatives of Communist bloc countries. We are lobbied. but who are the people who are lobbying in the offices in Bucharest or in Budapest. or Peking? Who are the lobbyists fighting in behalf of those people who are still suffering from the oppression of the totalitarian regimes among the Communist bloc countries? If my colleagues want a breakdown to see what it is costing us with regard to Romania. their exports in millions to the United States. for example. in 1979. were $329.6 million. They granted 1.552 visas that year. That worked out to a ransom per person of $212.371. In 1981. they granted 2.352 visas. exports to the United States were $560.1 million. and the cost in ransom per person through the extension of these kinds of credit was $238.095 per person. The fact is. we are dealing with totalitarian countries that in no way observe the normal rules of civilized nations. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution that would terminate this extension of U.S. credits and subsidies to totalitarian regimes by voting down the motion to table.
Date: 1983-08-02
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would like to call to your attention the work and contributions of a very special woman. Capt. Grace M. Hopper. U.S. Navy. who is currently serving on active duty with the Naval Data Automation Command in WashIngton. D.C. During her 40year association with the Navy. "the grand old lady of software" has made numerous contributions through her expertise in the computer field. Captain Hopper worked with the first largescale computer. Mark I. She pioneered much of todays most widely accepted computer programing language. COBOL. and she invented the first practical compiler to translate English into machine language. She has been honored with more than 30 awards and recognitions for her outstanding advances in the computer field. She retired from the Navy at the age of 60. However. the Navy was compelled to recall her to active duty just 9 months later when the Pentagon discovered it was in need of her expertise in the computer field. At 76. Captain Hopper is currently the oldest naval officer on active duty. In a May 1983 Interview with Newsweek. she was quoted as saying. "Ive received the highest award anybody can give me. and that is the privilege and the honor of serving proudly in the U.S. Navy." It is time the Navy recognized the outstanding contributions made by this officer recalled from retirement over a decade and a half ago. and promote her to the rank of commodore. I am today introducing legislation that authorizes and requests the President to promote- Capt. Grace M. Hopper to commodore. I ask that you. too. show Captain Hopper that she is a valuable part of our Navy. that she has contributed "above and beyond the call of duty" and that she is entitled to flag rank.