macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do not come before this body as any great expert on wilderness or natural resources. But something that has troubled me through the years is how easy it is for so many in this body who live back Eastand. as an Illinoisan. from the perspective of the Pacific Northwest. that is back Easthow easy it is for so many of us to make Judgments affecting in a very profound economic way the future of a State like Oregon in this instance and not see that if the same rules were being applied to our States that we would be recoiling in horror. fighting to preserve our economy and fighting to preserve Jobs. And we just devoted a great deal of attention recently to the question of Jobs in this body. and there is a Congressional Budget Office estimate of a potential loss of 1.500 jobs because of this bill to the Oregon economy. but perhaps even more significant is the loss of revenues through cuts that have been going on in the past. Federal timber receipt losses in an estimated $20 million a year to $40 million a year bracket. not to mention the increased costs that will result to Treasury if this legislation passes. So I would urge my colleagues to be a little more indulgent. Those who are most specifically involved in this case recognize that we do not have those problems. they are problems that are peculiar to the Western States. but that these people appreciate as much the concerns of the people who may be affected in an economic way. as we would. and we would be as passionately fighting in Illinois. I guarantee you. as they are in behalf of their own States.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I wish to respond to the last statement made with reference to the recent Congressional Research study that the gentleman quoted. and I want the Members to know that that is not an accurate position by the gentleman who wrote for the Congressional Research Service. The facts of the matter are that there were seven forests studied with the proposition in mind that if you could shut down all of the roads and move to intensified forest management. that you could indeed have an increased allowable cut. That is true for one forest out of seven. the Willamette National Forest. Of the other six. that is not true. Mr. Chairman. and I want the Mem. bers to be sure that they understand that the gentleman offering the proposal was reading from a study done by the Congressional Research Service. which I question. I question it because I have checked on it and these figures come directly from those studies and they dispute that statement under the Congressional Research study. This amendment. Mr. Chairman. is essential. I think we have established by the mere fact we are studying this area and at least we are discussing it that this bill does have jobs involved in it. By the way. I want to quote to you from a study done by the League of Oregon Counties in Oregon using a model from Oregon State University which indicates that the total loss of money in Oregon counties affected is $382 million every year. and the annual household income lost to people in Oregon who live within these areas is $127.892.000 every year.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

In answer to that question. the League of Oregon Counties only addressed the issue of the 1.2 million acre addition. It did not discuss what would occur should 2 million acres not be released. As a matter of fact. I would say to my friend from Oregon. that is a bad exchange because that is like trading four dead horses for a mule.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman. in response to the questionand I did not have a chance to ask the gentleman from Ohio to yieldthe question presented to the people in the Second Congressional District was this and I quote: "Do you favor more federally designated wilderness In Oregon?" A straight forward question. not a question that is warped on any side for an answer. The mere question was asked and 72 percent of respondents of the first 17.000 said "no." they do not want more federally designated wilderness in Oregon. I rise. Mr. Chairman. to support this amendment and I want to remind the Members again that of the additional wilderness in this bill of 1.2 million acres. 70 percent of that is in the Second Congressional District. that is the one I was just elected to represent and thank you for this welcome. it has been a lovely day. Nineteen percent is in Mr. WEAvERs district. in the Fourth Congressional District. 10 percent is in Mr. SMITHs district. in the Fifth Congressional District. 1 percent is in Mr. WYDENS district. and zero percent is In Mr. AuComs district. And I point that out merely to say to my colleagues that againand let me reemphasize this factthat 80 percent of the wilderness we are about to vote on comes from the two people who are opposing this bill and proposing and supporting this amendment. I think the point here is that my folks do not want it. DENNY SMrHs folks do not want it. the people who want it ought to have it. So let us support the amendment and allow those people who advocate more wilderness in their district to have more wilderness. I am perfectly happy to do that.
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

I would like to point out to the gentleman that that is two and I have just reported 12.000 people in my district oppose this bill. so today already it is 12.000 to
Date: 1983-03-21
Speaker: ROBERT F. SMITH (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I think the point ought to be addressed regarding the point just made by the gentleman from Oregon regarding the fact that there is timber in Oregon that we cannot sell. I.live in a community that has 15 percent unemployment. and that is just half the unemployment in that community because 15 percent of the people have already left town and they are in some other State. still trying to pay for their homes and their cars in our little town. It is a onemill town and it has been down and it is down. and it has barely been surviving since 1979. We now are listening to one who proposes that in the face of a recession we must judge whether or not the timber industry is going to survive. Sure. we cannot sell 16 million board feet of timber in the middle of a recession. That will not occur continuously throughout our lifetime. I hope. I believe we are in a resurgence. I believe it is time we looked to the future. May I point out also that the volume of timber available to this country is as important to Oregon as it is to Floridians. as it is to people in New York. and as it is to Texans. because just as surely as high interest rates deprive people of building homes. so does a reduced volume of timber available. which means that the raw resource skyrockets in value. That means that the high cost of housing will deprive people in every State of the Union from building a home just as well as high interest rates. So I would suggest to you do not evaluate the issue on the basis of a recession in Oregon. Look to the future and look to your constituents to say they would like to have the dream of democracy. to own their own home.
Date: 1983-04-11
Speaker: DANIEL B. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the prayer opening todays session of Congress was delivered by Rabbi Isaac Neuman of the Sinai Temple in Champaign. Ill. He also is the father of two fine sons. As a young man. Isaac Neuman perhaps had more experiences than most as he matured. For immediately following the completion of his education in Warsaw. war erupted in Europe. World War II. as we all know it today. We cannot begin to imagine what went through his mind as he spent the war years in the camps of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps. Doubtless he would try to forget. if remembering was not so important to the entire world. Perhaps in part because it was the United States that crushed his captors. Isaac Neuman came to this country. the land of the free and the home of the brave on April 11. 1950. exactly 33 years ago today. Quickly mastering his studies at the University of Cincinnati and Hebrew Union College. he completed his studies in 1958 and served in Panama. traveling throughout South America to recruit Jewish Latin American students. Mr. Speaker. it is a great honor for me and this House to host a man of H 1866 CO the stature of Rabbi Neuman. who truly knows the difference between a slave state and a free state.
Date: 1983-04-12
Speaker: DAN FORTH (republican)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding to me. Last month the Senate adopted Senate Joint Resolution 49. which authorized the President to proclaim "A Week of Remembrance for the Fortieth Anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising." This week also marks the First American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. It is a time to remember. a time to reflect. and an occasion to insure that the world never forgets-.never takes for grantedthe darkest single period in human history. We in Congress represent a nation of many faiths and beliefs. Yet. we observe this occasion with intense meaning for Jews throughout America and the world. There are fundamental reasons why all AmericansChristian and Jew. black and white. old and youngneed to remember and reflect upon the Holocaust. While the Holocaust stands alone in history. the ingredients that brought it about are not unique. Those ingredientstotal rejection of the value of human life. persecution based on beliefs and bigotry to the extremecan have no place in American society. This country must stand firm for the human values we hold so dear. Therefore. remembrance of the Holocaust is an opportunity to rekindle the values for which America stands. Respect for people and their value As human beings is part of our national identity. Abhorrence of persecution and bigotry lies at the very foundation of this great nation. The contrasts between these values and the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust are sharp. and sweeping. and painful. But their observance is necessaryno. vitalto insure that such events never repeat themselves. We articulate our national identity by keeping before us the Holocaust. We celebrate all that our country stands for by honoring the survivors who came to this country. We reaffirm the value we place on human life by commemorating. those freedom fighters in the Warsaw ghetto who. against utterly impossible odds. chose to die like human beings. The Holocaust was no brief episode. planned and carried out in secret by a few demented individuals. It was an enormous undertaking. spanning 12 years. involving thousands. if not hundreds of thousands of participants. Yet. in spite of the magnitudealmost impossible to comprehendwe must never forget that each arrest. each beating. each confiscation. and each murder was an act. committed at a single moment by one or a handful of thinking individuals. That any individual. or group of individuals. or nation of individuals could have committed such crimes against humankind forces us to reexamine every value and every professed belief we call our own. It is only by the constant reaffirmation of those values that America claims as its own that we can hope to insure that history never repeats itself.
Date: 1983-04-12
Speaker: PHIL BURTON (republican)
Chamber: H

exploded upon the political scene in California in the 1950s and he performed brilliantly on the local. State and national scene from that point on. At his death. PHIL BURTON was the acknowledged political power figure in Calfornia and the acknowledged leader of that diverse congressional delegation. PH. BURTON Is going to be remem bered for his political abilities and the causes he pushed so well during two decades in the House of Representatives. But there was another side to PHIL that few people outside of his colleagues ever had a chance to see. He was a devoted family man and his wife. Sala. and his daughter. Joy. were the foundation so necessary for him. His brother. John. who until last year served in this Congress with him. was PHIL BURTONs pride and joy. Some would say that PHIL took more pleasure In Johns successes than he did in his own. He was also a great practical joker in his earlier years and he loved to get together with some of his colleagues after the days session for the camaraderie. He could also be very gentle as only big and burly men can be gentle. I mourn his passing both professionally and personally. a feeling I am sure I share with all of my colleagues. My sympathies go to his wife and his family.o
Date: 1983-04-12
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. whenever PHIL BURTON and I voted together on an issue. we figured one of us was wrong. There were not too many times when PHIL and I found ourselves on the same side. but I respected PHIL as a person albeit we were usually adversaries. PHIL was a man of deep conviction who was willing to fight fiercely for his beliefs. Yet as strongly as PHIL could fight on an issue. he was always a gentleman and he retained a redeeming sense of humor. I will miss PHIL BURTON in this body. His ideological colleagues have lost one of their most energetic and talented leaders. and we have all lost a friend. regardless of ideological or political persuasion. My condolences go to Sala. his borther. John. and all relatives and friendsof PHIL BURTONe
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: ELMER M. SAVILLA (republican)
Chamber: S

Executive Director. Nutional Tribal Chairmens Association. Washington. D.C. DEAR Ma. SAVILLA: I have your request to Secretary Watt for a copy of a memorandlum dated October 28. 1981 fron the Associate Solicitor for Energy and Resources. As indicated in your letter. the memorandum is captioned "Nature and Extent of tle Secretarys Trust Responsibility when Indian Ilnterests Conflict with other National or Departmental Interests." Tie memorandum in question was only a preliminary analysis of legal issues and as such was not intended to represent the views of the Solicitors Office. II was a confidential exchange between attorney and client based on confidential communications from the latter. In accordance with this expectation of confidentiality. the memorandum is plainly marked on its face as "privileged and confidential communications of counsel." Its circulation las been strictly limited to Department personnel to whom access was necessary in the development of the document and in the subsequievnt decistonmaking process. For tihe foregoing reasons the ilemorandun is within tile fifth stat utoiy exemption provided by the Freedom of Information Act. 50 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). In addition to its being an intraagency memorandum which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. I find in accordance with 43 CPR 2.15tc) that sound ground exists to withhold the memorandum. That sound grond is the protection of the privileged communication between client and attorney witutwcr which legal services cannot he propiilv provided. Accordingly. your request for a copy of the inemorandum dated October 28. 1981 must be denied. Besides myself. Mr. Alexander Hansen Good. Associate Solicitor. Division of Energy and Resources. is responsible for the diiiial of your request. You may appeal this denial of your request by writing within 20 working days after the date of this denial to the Freedom of Information Act Appeals Officer. Office of the Assistant Secretary -Policy. Budget and Administration. U.S. Department of the Interior. Waslihiton. D.C. 20240. Information oil appeals is in 43 CFR 2.17. as amended August 31. 1982. 47 F.R. 38325. 38326. Sincerely.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: ELMER M. SAV.LA (republican)
Chamber: S

Executive Director. National Tribat Chuit mens Association. lVashinglon. D.C. DEAR MR. SAVILtA: This is a respons t your Prevdom of Information Act appeal dated January 211. 1983 (POlA 83 li). The appeal concerns a document you seek from tie Department. namely. an October 211. 1981 memorandum from the Associate SolicitorEnergy and Resources to ilt Umldr Secretary. stibject: Nature and Extent of tile Secretarys Trust Responsibility wh1n Indian Interests Conflict witl other Nationat or Departiental Interests. Your request oii appeal is denied. hle. minorandin you seek is an i nternal cotml nunication containing recommendations and opinions being used in the decisionmaking and policy fornulation process. The memorandum also represents attorniy workproduct prepared for cise lit developing litigation stratcgy it current and future water rights cass. Release of fit- iaterial would be disrupt ive I0 t the deliberat Ive proess in this DcartlIent. Therefore. sound grounds exist for continued denillI of the iemiorandum pursuant to exemption (5) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)5)). With regard to your argiuncut that the memorandum should be disclosed because of the Secretarys trust. responsibility. we have previously determined that such responsibility (oes not automatically require disclosures sought on behalf of Indian Tribes. Release of the document would be mislending since a final decision on Ihe issue has not been made. Its release also would interfere wilth tie DepartnienUs internal declsionmaking process. and jeopardize our ability to withhold the document from other requesters. In this Instance. the detrimental effects of disclosure outweigh the trust responsibility considerations. To assist you in understanding tile legal basis for this decision. enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from tie Deputy Associate Solicitor dated March 17. 1983. This is a final determination on your appeal for this Department. Amendments to the Freedom of Informatin Act require that I inform you that you have a right to obtain judicial review In the United States District Court for the District In which the withheld records art located. or In which you reside or have your principal place of business. or in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition to me. ithe officer responsible for this decision is Timothy S. Elliott. Deputy Associate Solicitor of tihe DepartSincerely.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not have a statement to make. If I could direct a couple of questions. I am not that conversant with the specifies of this case. but in the course of the debate I certainly wholeheartedly embrace the gentlemans comments about the immunities any Member in this body enjoys. You could not. in fact. conduct a democratic process without that kind of assurance of speech and debate. but I understand that this was a duly authorized investigation by the Committee on Aging and that those peopleand correct me if I have my facts wrongthose people violated the law of the State of Maryland in the process of performing this investigation.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

That has not been established. but is the gentleman suggesting that under the speech and debate clause that this body could permit illegal actions to be taken against private citizens. that that is a part of the prerogatives of the House?
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Well. if the gentleman will yield further. this does not involve a suit addressed against any Member of this body. as I understand it. is that correct?
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. and I would simply say to the distinguished chairman of the committee that. when addressing this problem of amendments and attempting to suggest that these are dilatory tactics. when one looks at the number of amendments that have already been accepted by the majority side. because of the overwhelming ma. Jority that that side possesses here. it is obvious that even in the eyes of the gentlemans majority. this bill was flawed when it came to the floor. It has obviously been improved by the process of give and take. the debate on the floor and the subsequent votes. Frankly. I myself have a number of amendments that I had hoped to bring before this body. some of which would have stood a good chance of passage. and it just seems totally unfair to bring a bill up under a rule establishing the ground rules for consideration of the bill and then change the rules in midstream and suddenly cut us all off. I have waited patiently for my turn. I am not on the committee. And. as a result. I was in the position of having to defer to committee members who had priority consideration of their amendments. I would appeal to the gentleman. out of a sense of fairplay. .not to terminate the debate. to see this thing through. and. as the distinguished ranking minority member has said. it is not because we are overburdened with work here. The fact is. the time schedules have been such that we have reserved precious little time for consideration of this resolution. And if we had taken it up in a single week. we might have disposed of the whole thing in 1 weeks time. I thank my colleague. the gentleman from Pennsylvania. for yielding.
Date: 1983-04-28
Speaker: PHILIP M. CRANE (republican)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague. the gentleman from Oklahoma. for yielding. and I want to congratulate him for taking this special order and for addressing this vitally Important subject. As the gentleman indicated. this Is considered the worlds greatest deliberative body and certainly the actions being contemplated at this time are a repudiation of that distinction that this body has earned in times past. We have been told that it is a dilatory minority. I submit that it is a dilatory majority. as the gentleman has correctly observed. with regard to the many breaks in. the consideration of this resolution but there is something else that I think should be brought to the attention of our colleagues. On March 16. the very first amendment that was accepted to the resolution was Lent as amended by Zablocki. so the chairman of the committee himself obviously recognized that this was a deficient piece of legislation and I am sure he was grateful for the opportunity to administer some modification and corrective to what was brought out of the committee at that time. On that same date. another amendment introduced on the other side by the gentleman from New York. was amended. by Zablocki. Once more. the distinguished chairman had an opportunity to perfect language in an obviously misconstruct ed piece of legislation. On April 20. Broomfield was amended by Stratton. Again. their side of the aisle had the opportuiity to improve this deficient legislation. On April 20. our colleague. the gentleman from Georgia had an amendment accepted. Obviously. the majority on that side recognized once more the importance of perfecting the language. On April 20. also. Hunter was amended by Zablocki. Once more the chairman had an opportunity to make some more constructive input upon greater reflection and on what came out of the debate here on the floor. On April 20. also. our good friend and colleague. the gentleman from New York pad another amendment accepted. That same day. the gentleman from Georgia on *our side had an amendment that was. amended once more by Chairman ZABLOCKI. once more perfecting the language. Then that same day again our colleague. the gentleman from New York