macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the only thing growing today throughout much of rural America Is concern about a potential calamity. From the wheat fields In North Dakotas Red River Valley to the cattle ranches along the Rio Grande. from the cornfields of Ohio to the vegetable and fruit farms of California. much of the Nations breadbasket is literally drying up. I and many other Members are deeply concerned about the Impact this drought is having on American farmers who are only now beginning to enjoy the positive effects of the 1985 farm bill. We have come too far to allow farmers to slip back into another agricultural depression like the one we experienced in the early 1980s. Obviously. what the Farm Belt needs more than anything right now Is rain. Unfortunately. while the Federal Government has lots of powers it cannot make it rain. But there are other actions the Federal Government can take to help our Nations farmers weather this most recent crisis. The drought is not just the farmers problem. The Impact of this years drought has already been felt at the supermarket where food prices are beginning to rise. There is also concern about how the drought may Impact efforts to expand agricultural experts and regain lost foreign markets. Yesterday. I. in my capacity as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture. along with Representative EDWARD MADIGAN. the ranking minority member of the committee. established a 12member Congressional Drought Task Force. Made up of members of the Agriculture Committee. the task forces mission Is to make sure that the areas of rural America suffering from this drought receive the attention in Washington that they so desperately need. A similar task force has been set up by the Senate Committee on Agriculture. Nutrition. and Forestry by its chairman. Senator
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding and appreciate his comments and his interest. his concern and his work in helping agriculture and rural America. I Just wanted to bring to the attention of the distinguished gentleman that in reading the bill and the report. we find that in the area of assisting rural America. I am sure inadvertently. the gentleman has cited the wrong statute. On page 17 beginning on line 11. in authorizing for financially stressed farmers and dislocated farmers. et cetera. mention is made of section 1440 of Public Law 99198. That has been replaced by Public Law 100219. The report language limits the funds herein provided to several States that are not included in the present law. which is Public Law 100219. I wonder if the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi would be agreeable to correcting that section and do what the gentleman says he would like to do. do what the committee of jurisdiction intended to be done. and in that way we will be In unison and do exactly what both of us want to do. which is to assist rural America and farmers in distress.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate that. I think I can assure the gentleman that what he wants to do and what we intended should be done can be simply covered by changing section 1440 of Public Law 99198 to read: Public Law 100219.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is the Rural Crisis Recovery Act. I would appreciate the gentleman and/or his staff looking at that. and we will work it out with him. Later on in the discussion I will have another couple of areas of concern. but for now I thank the gentleman kindly for yielding to me at this point.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate the gentleman yielding at this point. Mr. Chairman. I want to inquire of the distinguished gentleman if he has received a communication from CBO in regard to his amendments? Mr. DioGUARDI. We have been in touch with the OMB and the GAO. but CBO could not offer an assessment on my proposals.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman has not received a communication from them with regard to his amendment? Mr. DroGUARDI. I might say. Mr. Chairman. that the General Accounting Office feels that this program is poorly conceived. GAO stated that this approach is needlessly going to encourage bad farmers to come back for new loans and work against the good farmers we have. Mr. Chairman. not everybody in this country is entitled to be a farmer. I think what we have got to do is to encourage those who have demonstrated that they can produce. that they can be good farmers. These are the people that we want to encourage. By the way. bad farmers represent. I think. less than 5 percent of the people I am talking about.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is exactly what the legislation did and that is the fact. The gentleman has stated it correctly. but his public utterances have been to the contrary. That is our concern. But I would ask the gentleman. the distinguished accountant. and an expert. or so he has entitled himself. has the gentleman kept up with what the FDIC is doing. has the gentleman kept up with what the FSLIC is doing? Pumping money in.o defunct savings and loans associations and banks. has the gentleman kept up with that? Mr. DioGUARDI. Yes. I have.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Is that a concern of the gentlemans? Mr. DioGUARDI. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman. I have stood up and talked in committee. in the Committee on Banking and I would be glad to speak on that now. It is absolutely ridiculous. We right now in this country have the Mickey Mouse accounting system anyone ever created. We. in Congress. still use the same Mickey Mouse cash basis of accounting that we took New York City off of in 1976 as a price for the bailout. What is happening here is we are not recording economic reality. What is going to happen with the gentlemans proposal is that he is going to put more bad loans into the pipeline so that he is going to come back in the future and get another $9 billion bailout.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Nowhere does our legisl.tion say that FmHA make a loan that they do not feel is a responsible loan. as in other bankingwell. not as in other banking institutions. because some of them are in trouble for not making responsible loans. Savings and loans all over the place are in trouble for that reason. I would be very happy to join with the gentleman to address that issue.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding this time to me. and I Just want to put this back in proper perspective because the gentleman keeps insisting how much publicity the amendments have generated with farmers. et cetera. The amendments are based on erroneous Information and facts. Mr. DIOGUARDI Just mentioned. the cost of the programs. let us say they are $25 billion. What do we need to relate to this amount? $25 billion out of what amount? Mr. Chairman. the total budget is $1 trillionplus. and everyone is pointing to agriculture like we are causing the deficit. We are the ones causing the enlargement of the national debt. They spend the amount spent on agriculture in 1 month at the Pentagon. A budget of $1 trillionplus. and all of a sudden we have concern for the amount spent on those who feed and clothe us. I am getting concerned and somewhat frustrated that Members and outsiders with Inadequate Information. who point a finger to readily would come and say that my amendment has gotten extensive publicity. Mr. Chairman. the amendments are not based on the correct facts. They do not follow the premises of the legislation that we passed. It is completely erroneous information that Is being put out by a sometimes gullible media.
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is my concern. I have no quarrel with the distinguished chairman whom I appreciate very much. and whom I respect and admire. I know that in his heart he Is always trying to do what Is best. My concern is that these examples. if they do not legislate. they are on the verge of legislation and we are setting a dangerous precedent. by going beyond the norm of the authorizing legislation in perhaps what could be parliamentarily acceptable. but if it is not. then switching to the report and giving guidance beyond the norm of the statute and/or the authorizing committees intent. I would hope that as we continue to work in the future. that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the members of the Committee on Appropriations know and understand that we are readily available. that we are interested in cooperating with them. that we are in good faith willing o( kp June 16. 1.988 to work with them and that there is no problem that. together. we cannot resolve for the benefit of those whom we attempt to serve. Are there any further amendments to title I?
Date: 1988-06-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am against the amnendment and I Join my distinguished chairman. Mr. DioGUARDI. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I think Just to clarify what will happen here: I have basically two amendments. One of the amendments. the one that would be more harsh would be the one that says that we would not allow anyone to come back andborrow if they had a restructuring. I would be willing to drop that amendment. But the first amendment I think is a modest amendment. All it says is that if an individual farmer has been a bad manager. has not paid or is in default for a 2year period. that that individual should not be given a new loan. So I would ask the House and urge a "no" vote on a motion to rise here or if the House moves to rise I would urge a "no" vote so that I can at least offer the first amendment. which I think is a modest proposal since it does not reduce the appropriation but it just gets to the issue of who the bad managers are. Are there further amendments to title I? If not. the Clerk will read.
Date: 1988-06-21
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. once again. the people of Haiti are suffering through political upheavala military coup. while the United States sits by without any coherent foreign policy toward this island nation. United States policy toward Haiti since the departure of "Baby Doc" Du. valier has been a continuing series of disasters. We promoted democratic reforms and. at our urging. the people of Haiti turened out in large numbers to vote. Then we stood by helplessly as thugs HAt484 slaughtered them at the polls while the Haitian Army Just watched. We stood on the sidelines for a second election. which was rigged. and only created a sham of a civilian government. When that government recently moved to exert some control over the Army. we were unprepared and unable to help as the Army callously seized power and announced it would rule by decree. The democraticminded people of Haiti must be wondering if they can afford to rely on the United States for support. I want to express the deep concern that the people of my home islands feel for our neighbors in Haiti. who are struggling to establish democracy. as so many of their West Indian neighbors have been able to do. I also want to express our disappointment that the United States has Just stood by as the hopes for the creation of a democratic government in Haiti have been cynically crushed.-
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. and I want to correct some misinformation that is being used and bandied about in this situation. Granted. there is a problem but this is not a payment to manufacturers only. The perception of the public is simply that we are giving some big chemical companies money as a windfall. but the indemnification may be made to the smallest farmer back through the chain to retail suppliers and to the manufacturerwhomever is holding the suspended pesticide. So it is not only indemnification of the manufacturers. It is indemnification to ensure the safe recovery. storage. and effective disposal of the chemicals. Also let me say. if the gentleman will continue to yield. that much is being made about food and drugs and why those items. if recalled. are not eligible for indemnification. Mr. Speaker. whenever a bottle of aspirin is recalled. it may simply be taken back to the drugstore or thrown away. Mr. Speaker. I want to give the House accurate information and some comparisons. If one is told that a bottle of aspirin is no good. it is taken back to the drugstore. or it is dumped down the toilet bowl. This is how one disposes of it. There is no indemnification because one may simply throw the item away without threatening human health or the environment.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Not necessarily. because we have passed legislation to indemnify other industries. such as for nuclear accidents. and so on. for expenses beyond the ability of a private utility to pay. We have enacted that kind of legislation. We also have the Superfund to deal with chemicals and spills and chemical dumps. A small farmer could have 8 or 10 barrels of one of the chemicals that has been banned. He cannot dump it down the toilet bowl like one can do with a bottle of aspirin. That would be irresponsible.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the gentleman from Texas did not say that. and again that is misinformation. Chevron did receive an indemnification payment. The gentlemans report may be accurate. but the interpretation for the Members is inaccurate and misleading. Inaccurate information is being injected into the debate.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the debate should be in the committee of jurisdiction. not on an appropriation bill with limited time here on the floor.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. it has not been. We had a major bill on the floor of the House three times in 1986.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Has the gentleman considered or does the report consider what. if indemnification is done away with. will happen to all of those tons of dangerous pesticides that are scattered throughout America?
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. First. let me thank the members of the Committee on Rules for abiding by the rules and providing that this debate should be in the committee of jurisdiction where it can be adequately addressed and intelligently pursued so that we may have accurate facts and not deal with emotion or erroneous perception. Let me say that yes. there Is a lot of money involved here. But to say that the reimbursement is made only to the large chemical companies is wrong. I am not here speaking in defense of the large chemical companies. This is not simply some gimmick to put money into the pockets of the large chemical companies. That is an inaccurate perception of what current law does. First. let me go back: We passed a FIFRA bill through this House three times in the last Congress. In the last days of the last Congress a very fragile compromise had been reached. I will have to admit this specific issue was not addressed.. but we had a FIFRA bill. So those who say we have not had a FIFRA bill are simply incorrect. Now let me go to the question of who gets or who could get money. This is not an automatic payment. There are steps that you have to go through to be able to receive compensation. That is true for a farmer with one barrel. a retailer with thousands of barrels. or whoever has the pesticide. I ask again: What happens to that toxic chemical that has been suspended to protect the health and safety of the American people? It is not. like others have said. a bottle of aspirin that is bad. You can simply throw the aspirin away. That is the difference. Those who are looking only at the money issue for whatever reason are wrong. wrong. wrong. These are dangerous pesticides that our Government has said should not be used and have to be disposed of adequately and safely. We got involved in this situation so that the farmer does not dump the suspended pesticide in the nearest creek. so that the retailer does not take It to the city dump. so that the chemical manufacturer does not improperly dispose of the pesticide. This is what we are talking about: Safety. the protection of wildlife. the protection of water and the health and safety of American citizens. When the manufacturer put the product on the market it was legal. When the retailer bought it. it was legal. When the farmer bought it. it was legal. It was after the fact that EPA ruled under FIFRA that. "This chemical cannot and should not be used." We have no problem and no quarrel with that decision. The question is how do you proceed from there? The Congress in its wisdom decided in 1972 that the best way would be for the Government to pay the costs. unless you want to have the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA or someone collect it all and see that it is adequately disposed of. But much is being said about how companies like Chevron got so many millions of dollars. But the money is to ensure that the product can be adequately and safely retrieved and disposed of under proper supervision
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DR LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman wants to penalize the company after the fact. After they have been told that this is a legal chemical. then they are told. "No. it is not legal and you are caught with stock." It s the Government acting In behalf of the safety of the people that has done the act. This is what we have taken up. the committee has taken it. and the House has approved. that it Is the responsibility of the Government because of their duty to safeguard the health. safety. and morals of the public. This is what we are talking about. I know it sounds great that we are going to save money. we are going to sock it to Chevron or Dow or whoever. we are going to do this and that. That is not the issue. The issue is the health and safety of the American people and it should be debated in the committee of jurisdiction. it should be adequately addressed and it should be done with facts and without emotion and some degree of ignorance that some of the outsiders have. I would not attribute that to any of my distinguished colleagues in this body. But there is emotion and ignorance outside. erroneous editorials. One newspaper says. "House and Senate have not dealt with the issue." They say we have not addressed the issue of pesticides. We have. The gentleman from Iowa dedicated 3 years of his life to working on the FIFRA legislation. passed it in Just the laIt few seconds of the last session. It was not considered by the other body for whatever reason. But they cannot Just sweep with a broad broom or paint with a broad brush and say this committee and this House has not acted. because we have. So the issue now is. a few headlines here. erroneous editorials there. proceeding under the ruleaddressing the issue which is a serious issuebut addressing it adequately in the committee of jurisdiction. I pledge to the Committee on Rules. I am pledging to this House that this issue will be addressed. that the appropriate subcommittee will address the issue and it ray be that we may even have FIFRA legislation this year. the other body cooperating with us. So that is our pledge. that is our commitment. That has never been the issue and should not be the issue. That there be finger pointing that we have not done anything. that another committee has to act. that it be done in an appropriations billthat is wrong. I think the best thing to do is to vote for the rule and wait for the committee of jurisdiction to handle the legislation.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted not only to refer to the issue which I debated earlier. but I wanted to associate myself with the gentlemans remarks on UDAG and commend him for his insistence that we look at this issue. because throughout rural America. we on the Agriculture Committee look at UDAG as being at the heart of many of the small cities. and this is the only activity within those small cities. So we in the Federal Establishment. yes. with taxpayer dollars. are nonetheless creating an opportunity for those who cannot themselves generate sufficient funds. They can put the meager funds they do have with the UDAG to build facilities for health and safety and progressive development In those communities. Mr. Speaker. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield further. when I say we passed the FIFRA bill three times. it was consensus compromise legislation. and unfortunately it did not have this very controversial issue in it. However. in this Congress the Subcommittee on Department Operations. Research. and Foreign Agriculture has reviewed the issue. and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. SYNARI has testified before that subcommittee.
Date: 1988-06-22
Speaker: ED BOLAND (democrat)
Chamber: H

and that is that even though you disagree with the gentleman from time to time on philosophical issues perhaps. he is at all times a gentleman and he is at all times a man of his word. He has been that for the 10 years that I have had the privilege of serving with him. Let me just say as the ranking Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee. I want to thank both the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New York for the outstanding service that they have given to the 27 million veterans and the 47 million members of veterans families who have benefited from these vital programs. We really do thank them for all the cooperation they have given us In the past. Mr. Chairman. as the ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I rise in strong support of the legislation. If I may. Mr. Chairman. I would refer to the committee report on H.R. 4800 which makes one strong argument for elevating the VA to Cabinet level. The report states that the Veterans Administration is the third largest Federal agency in terms of employment with over 222.000 employees. It administers benefits for over 27 million veterans. 47 million family members of living veterans. and 1.8 million survivors of deceased veterans. Mr. Chairman. what this means is that 76.5 million Americans comprising about 31 percent of the total population of the United States. are potential recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. BOLAND.
Date: 1988-06-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the Bicentennial of the U.S. Congress. with Senate amendments thereto. concur in Senate amendments numbered 18. 23. and 28. disagree to Senate amendments numbered 1 through 17. 19 through 22. 24 through 27. 29 through 35. and 37 through 39. and concur in the Senate amendment numbered 36 with an amendment.
Date: 1988-06-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the House amendment to the Senate amendment numbered 36 be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.