macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I also want to leave you with this thought: We do not know about this marketing loan. It is untried. It has not been utilized. We do not know if it will work. The patient is too ill now to gamble. We have to stabilize his condition. I know of no better way to explain this than the time that I had an ailment called diverticulitis. and I had an attack. and they took me to the hospital. They said I was going to die. And the doctors had to then make the decision. do we do surgery or do we try to stabilize him? Well. if they were to do surgery. then they read me the list of possible complications. and they left me to make the decision. There was no way that I was going to have surgery. They said they could try and stabilize my condition. But for a while. I thought. well. maybe If I am going to die anyway. it might as well be now. But I decided against it because of the instinctive reaction of the body. So they stabilized my condition. Three months later. I went and had the surgery and everything worked out fine. And that is where we are now. if you will pardon me for using my own personal experience. It is now too risky to gamble. We do not know what the other nations are going to do. We do not know what other countries are going to do. And I tell you that we cannot lose control of influencing the price. Under the amendment. we would give charity to a few small farms under helping the family farmer. But now is not the time to do that and I assure you that in my congressional district. the bulk are small and they are family farmers. but there is a tendency to say that the big should not participate in the American dream. that the big should not participate in the program. that only the small should participate. We call it a family farm to rationalize our concept that to us. philosophically. "big is bad." We need to pass a bill that encompasses all American agriculture. We cannot put the big off on the side. we cannot let the little one fall by the wayside. This committee bill may not help all of them out there. but we have to to stabilize the farm economy as best we can. This is what the committee came up with. Yet. this amendment is a novel concept. it has not been tested. We cannot risk testing this concept now.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The Committee started with the premise to not drastically reduce the farmers income and then see how we can sustain it as best we can. So as enticing as the legislation sounds. as fervent as the plea is from those who support it. I submit to the Members. we must stay with the committee because the balance that Is at stake is too dangerous to gamble with.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me reclaim my time. I did not say that. and if it came out that way. I did not mean that. but there is a concept here that "if youre big. youre bad" and this is what I am trying to negate.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

To support the committee version. that his how you can best utilize your money to help all of the farmers of America. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the committee version of the legislation. We cannot gamble. it is too risky. we have tried and we can correct and have midcourse corrections. this would just be turned loose and then there will be no retrieving. regardless of what the consequences are.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman yjelding. I do not say this in a derogatory way. but the gentleman is emphasizing that you are putting it on the back of the farmer. Not so. We are sharing now. We are having a difficult problen. But one of the worse problems in our area and in the area of the gentleman is when we are going to balance the budget. That is the- most that we can do for the farmer besides giving him a price. is to balance the budget. This market clearing amendment. here you are letting the world set the price and you are putting the costs then on the taxpayer. What we do here is not all agreeable to a lot of people. That is why I say we have to stick with the committee. because editorial after editorial about the big price the farmers are getting. we know it is not so. So the gentleman uses perhaps the wrong phraseology here that you are going to take it off the back of the farmer. you are going to put it on the back of the taxpayer without control. without limit. We have to do a balancing act. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. very briefly. we have heard so terribly much that we need to level the field here. we need a level playing field. This marketing concept. they reduce. they reduce. they reduce. they reduce..because our farmer then will just get it from the Federal budget and we will be at their mercy. Where will we wind up? Where will be the price that we leave for our farmers? Where will we be in 2 years. 3 years? I have to think of the farmer to the end of this century. not in the next election or next year or 3 years. We have got to look to see how we can stabilize it in the long term. If we leave this to the vagaries of other countries. knowing that we are going to sell at any rate. then they will just go under and go a lot under where we would be. What have we done to stabilize the price for the farmer at the end? Nothing.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I take this time to advise the Members that I think we have fully debated this amendment and we are ready to vote. But what I would like to leave my- colleagues with is the thought that even though there are differences of opinions as to the philosophy or the thrust of the solution. we all agree the farmer is still in trouble out there. Mr. Chairman. we need legislation. and the intensity of the debate is perhaps because of that. We have a disagreement basically. but we have no crystal ball. It is illusory at best that the grain will move. We started losing markets before the dollar started gaining strength and before the interest rates started going up. so it is hard to say that the grain is going to move. It may or it may not. But the fact that I want my colleagues to understand is that we still have the problem. We still have the farmer in trouble. We need to address many issues. We need to bring down interest rates. keep inflation down. and reduce. if we can. the discrepancy between our currency and other currencies. So we cannot say that we will pass this amendment and all of a sudden everything is going -to be bright and sunshiny and everybody out there is going to be buying our grain. No so. I ask my colleagues to exercise some degree of caution. I hope they do not get. too terribly confused with loan rates and target prices and marketing loans. If they are confused. I do not blame them. But the best thing Members can do under the circumstances is to stay with the committee version. stay with the leadership of the committee. because we have to remain together for the other parts of the bill. Akaka. Mr. Chairman. the best way to Anderson arrive at a final product is to go with Andrews Annunzio the carefully crafted parts of the legis- Anthony lation. and I would hope that the Archer Members will do that. Aspin
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this amendment to the marketing certificate program as appears in our bill was made necessary by reestimate of the provisions caused by the Congressional Budget Office following adoption of H.R. 2100 by the committee. This amendment will provide an additional 3 years saving of over $2 billion. This amendment will simply prevent any producer from increasing his wheat or feed grain base during the operation of the market certificate program. There may be a possibility that would entice someone because of the high support to get into the program. This will. in effect. not do any harm to the socalled Stenholm provisions of base and yield.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I take this time to advise my colleagues that we have a very difficult situation. as well as you can see from the debate here by the members of our committee. But I have a responsibility. and I think we have a responsibility. to realize that this is a national problem. that the plight of rural America and the American farmer is a national problem that encompasses all regions. Statesand every producer is impacted. I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation is not a panacea. but it was very carefully debated and crafted. I have the responsibility to state to you that there are many areas of agriculture that are not impacted by this legislation. The fruit and vegetable industry. for example. is very important in my area. The only thing they get basically from the Government is harassment. If their crop fails. they get no assistance from Government. There is no loan. There is no target price. We have to weigh that. It is not a single issue for a single area. You need to. stick with the committee version because that was the sense of a majority of the members as to how we should proceed. For example. somehow there is a concept that the family farm is ma and pa and the kids. and two hogs. and a few chickens and a cow. But let me tell you that went a long time ago. So when you say you support the family farm. you must realize that a family farmer may own 100.000 acres. In spme areas. this would be a big producer. but maybe not in another State. maybe not in another region. But we are talking about the future of all American agriculture. I will remind you that we could conceivably become an importdependent Nation and we do not want this. especially in agriculture. What farmers need is a price. not targeting. They need a price for their crop. and that is what we have to see that we do. The current farm program is not working as well as we wanted it to. but other things disrupted it: the high value of the dollar. abnormal weather conditions. the high interest rates. If a farmer had a price for his crop. then he could make loan payments that are due. and this money is so very important to the community where he lives. Now. under this marketing loan concept. you will be letting the rest of the world set the price. Yes. I would agree that where we set the loan has a tendency to set world prices also. But under this marketing loan concept. we would lose complete control. The farmer will sell his product at whatever low price is available and know the Government will still pay him a good price. This is bad policy. And who is going to set the price? Our competitors. The price can be set every day. Our competitors around the world are going to look at our loan rate. and that is where they are setting their price? Not so. If you turn it loose. they will set their price daily and our farmers will have no alternative but to sell. We will lose control of our input. as minimal as it might be. as to what the world price is going to be.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I also want to leave you with this thought: We do not know about this marketing loan. It is untried. It has not been utilized. We do not know if it will work. The patient is too ill now to gamble. We have to stabilize his condition. I know of no better way to explain this than the time that I had an ailment called diverticulitis. and I had an attack. and they took me to the hospital. They said I was going to die. And the doctors had to then make the decision. do we do surgery or do we try to stabilize him? . Well. If they were to do surgery. then they read me the list of possible complications. and they left me to make the decision. There was no way r that I was going to have surgery. They said they could try and stabilize my condition. But for a while. I thought. well. maybe If I am going to die anyway. it might as well be now. But I decided against it because of the instinctive reaction of the body. So they stabilized my condition. Three months later. I went and had the surgery and everything worked out fine. And that is where we are now. if you will pardon me for using my own personal experience. It is now too risky to gamble. We do not know what the other nations are going to do. We do not. know what other countries are going to do. And I tell you that we cannot lose control of influencing the price. Under the amendment. we would give charity to a few small farms under helping the family farmer. But now is not the time to do that and I assure you that in my congressional district. the bulk are small and they are family farmers. but there is a tendency to say that the big should not participate in the American dream. that the big should not participate in the program. that only the small should participate. We call it a family farm to rationalize our.concept that to us. philosophically. "big is bad." We need to pass a bill that encompasses all American agriculture. We cannot put the big off on the side. we cannot let the little one fall by the wayside. This committee bill may not help all of them out there. but we have to to stabilize the farm economy as best we can. This is what the committee came up with. Yet. this amendment is a novel concept. it has not been tested. We cannot risk testing this concept now.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The Committee started with the premise to not drastically reduce the farmers income and then see how we can sustain it as best we can. So as enticing as the legislation sounds. as fervent as the plea is from those who support it. I submit to the Members. we must stay with the committee because the balance that is at stake is too dangerous to gamble with:
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I do not say this in a derogatory way. but the gentleman is emphasizing that you are putting it on the back of the farmer. Not so. We are sharing now. We are having a difficult problem. But one of the worse problemtis in our area and in the area of the gentleman is when we are going to balance the budget. That is the most that we can do for the farmer besides giving him a price. is to balance the budget. This market clearing amendment. here you are letting the world set the price and you are putting the costs then on the taxpayer. What we do here is not all agreeable to a lot of people. That is why I say we have to stick with the committee. because editorial after editorial about the big price the farmers are getting. we know it is not so. So the gentleman uses perhalps the wrong phraseology here that you are going to take it off the back of the farmer. you are going to put it on the back of the taxpayer without control. without limit. We have to do a balancing act. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. very briefly. we have heard so terribly much that we need to level the field here. we need a level playing field. This marketing concept. they reduce. they rpduce. they reduce. they reduce. because our farmer then will just get it from the Federal budget and we will be at their mercy. Where will we wind up? Where will be the price that we leave for our farmers? Where will we be in 2 years. 3 years? I have to think of the farmer to the end of this century. not in the next election or next year or 3 years. We have got to look to see how we can stabilize it in the long term. If we leave this to the vagaries of other countries. knowing that we are going to sell at any rate. then they will just go under and go a lot under where we would be. What have we done to stabilize the price for the farmer at the end? Nothing.
Date: 1985-10-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I take this time to advise the Members that I think we have fully debated this amendment and we are ready to vote. But what I would like to leave my colleagues with is the thought that even though there are differences of opinions as to the philosophy or the thrust of the solution. we all agree the farmer is still in trouble out there. Mr. Chairman. we need legislation. and the intensity of the debate is perhaps because of that. We have a disagreement basically. but we have no crystal ball. It is illusory at best that the grain will move. We started losing markets before the dollar started gaining strength and before the interest rates started going up. so it is hard to say that the grain is going to move. It may or it may not. But the fact that I want my colleagues to understand is that we still have the problem. We still have the farmer in trouble. We need to address many issues. We need to bring down interest rates. keep inflation down. arid reduce. if we can. the discrepancy between our currency and other currencies. So we cannot say that we will pass this amendment and all of a sudden. everything is going to be bright and sunshiny and everybody out there is going to be buying our grain. No so. I ask my colleagues to exercise some degree of caution. I hope they do not get too terribly confused with loan rates and target prices and marketing loans. If they are confused. I do not blame them. But the best thing Members can do under the circumstances is to stay with the committee version. stay with the leadership of the committee. because we have to remain together for the other parts of the bill. Mr. Chairman. the best way to arrive at a final product is to go with the carefully crafted parts of the legislation. and I would hope that the Members will do that.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I do so to inquire if maybe there might not be a possibility that we could get a vote by. let us say. 6 oclock. We had debated this issue yesterday extensively and we are debating it now. I fould not want to cut anyone off. but conceivably we could do this with 2 minutes each or something like that to make our final plea. The leadership has requested that we rise by 6 oclock and then come back tomorrow. I would hope that the issue is settled and that we might get the vote this evening. Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment cease at 6 oclock and we proceed to vote at that time.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I continue under my time. I offer the gentleman my time in good faith. and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me plead with my colleagues not to get into this type of a situation. I cannot control who objects and who does not object. I hope that we do not get into this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman. I would yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Nebraska at this point if the gentleman wishes to take it. I am offering it in good faith. I have not made a -unanimous consent request.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if I may reclaim my time. did I make a unanimousconsent request? If I did so. I withdraw it.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

So it was objected to. We are just wasting time. The Chairman wotild just like to accommodate the members. At this time. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska .
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to take time to make a motion and force a vote when the membership is not ready. I would say. Mr: Chairman. that I make the same plea again. We have a bill that- is structured as comprehensively as we could. There is passion on both sides of this issue. I would hope that the membership would stay with the committee. It may not be the best of solutions. but it is the best we can do.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman.. I have asked for this additional time to conclude our referendum to see how many want to.speak. Who is counting? I count about 17. I figure with 1 minute each we would need about 20 minutes. The leadership has requested that we rise at 6. That means that we will go until tomorrow before we have a vote on this. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman.
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I As we consider H.R. 2100. we must re- ness. ask unanimous consent that all debate member that our farmers need income. In- woul on this amendment. the Madigan creased Federal support of farmers will be ucts amendment. end in 1 hour and that necessary unless farm income improves prey the time be divided equally between dramatically in the next year. We need a fron thq chairman of the committee and farm policy which does not bankrupt farm- woul the ranking. minority member. ers and taxpayers at the same time. A grad- no d
Date: 1985-10-02
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on todays consideration of H.R.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: JOSEPH CONNORS (democrat)
Chamber: S

c/o Senator John Chafee DEAR JOSEPH: We saw you o morning. and congratulate you work at the Capitol. I used to s weeks each summer in Washingt was your age. and I know how ex there. I hope my own boy can have kinds of opportunities when he g Your boss. Senator Chafee. is a for fighting for these opportu your fine workthough its too need special proofwill likely other people to have the chances they deserve. Enjoy your trip back to Rhode I Sincerely yours. FRAN WALTHAM. MA. July DEAR SENATOR CHAFEE: I am su be one of many letters you will garding your appearance on th show with Joe. Mr. Joseph Conno I am writing through my tears is so fullwhat a wonderful thing dowhat an opportunity. a life for Joeto be integrated into world. As the mother of a retarded so have always been so frustrated lack of opportunity and challen ance in general. for people like h so many untapped resources. twentysix. and so what is. will the younger generation perhap world. With people like you in t showing the way. with new ide understanding. and tolerance. Go us all. My best wishes to you. MARGARET (Mrs. P.S.-I am enclosing a note fort 26. 1985. on televiseph Cony someone do almost is is a posithe public d 2%/ has . She. too. o help her igh places mple I feel ken a posillows. cnGRATH DEAR SENATOR CHAFEE: I was so pleased to see you on TV with the young man who is working in Washington as a page. So little Is really understood by most people concerning "Downs Syndrome." I think you do a great service by showing that. given training. etc.. most persons suffering from this disorder can live happy and productive lives. Having a little greatgranddaughter who is a "Downs Child" I am aware. for the first time. how much can be done for these children through the wonderful programs that exist. I thank you for taking the time to show how much one courageous young man has been able to accomplish despite his handicap. Sincerely. ulations to MARY E. MCSWEENEY. S! Mr. CHAFEE. Unfortunately. beMc. cause of space limitations I cannot E. McG. insert all of the letters I received. MAR. PA. However. I would like to thank every)U nd oeone who took the time to share their Ou and Joe think that very touching thoughts and experitic. I have ences with me. associated I also ask unanimous consent to ildren also insert at this point in the RECORD some hope this of the articles that appeared in the other .law Providence Journal about Joe. cide where a plus to There being- no objection. the artive all they des were ordered to be printed in the I potential. RECORD. 8.S folIOwr: