macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentiewoman for yielding. Again. as I have throughout the morning. I will say those jobs. if they were to be lost. are not going to be replaced in the United States. They are going to a foreign country. Second. do you think the workers at the McCormick plant in Baltimore get the bulk of the money McCormick makes? No. It is the corporate stockholders and the president of the company. So that is not. a valid argument. My district is ethnic also. but we do not want to pit your ethnic against my ethnic. The solution to that problem. to the problem of the gentlewoman. is in the Committee on Ways and Means. iot in our jurisdiction. It is in the tax needed by the refiner. and I have been working personally with the cane refiners. The solution is in the Committee on Ways and Means. not here.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. To conclude. yes. we have labored almost for a year and onehalf in the Agriculture Committee to have a balanced package. But there has been so much erroneous information. I am sure not intentionially. Workers in the sugar industry. in the refineries. on the docks who support our sugar program include the International Longshoremens and. Warehousemens Union. the Seafarers International Union of North America. the Oil. Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union. the Distillery. Wine and Allied Workers International Union. the American Federation of Grain Millers. and the International Association of Machinists. My friends. we have a Jenkins textile bill. we have a GephardtBenson. import bill. My friends. this will be the first vote on whether we protect American producers and manufacturers this year. This is the first vote. If you cosponsor the textile bill. you cannot but vote with us against this amendment. If you want to support the shoe industry. you cannot but vote with us against this amendment If you support the automobile industry. you cannot but vote with us against this amendment. That is what it is all about. Reduce the deficit. yes. but not if you kill the sugar industry. I remember a movie "To Kill a Mockingbird." a defenseless. lovely bird that only sings. Would you kill the industry which is defenseless? This is the time. my friends. to show the flag. Are we going to buy American? Are we going to protect American industry? This thing about the whole world going Communist. if you kill the sugar industry in a few States. that El Salvador and all the others. Nicaragua will go Communist because of foreign policy implications? I tell. the State Department that this Congress demands that the foreign policy of the United States be for Americans first. and that second. we help our neighbors. We are helping Mexico in their disaster. We are helping Mexico. but how can we help Mexico if we do not have jobs here to get the money in taxes for the Treasury. to help the other peoples of the world? My friends. I cannot see how one Member of this Chamber can vote for this amendment because if you do. you are not showing the flag. You are giving the jobs away to foreign countries. This illusory thing. that it will help the consumer. the best way to help the consumer is to have jobs. It all begins in the farm. If you kill the farm. you are killing the tap roots of what America is. This is the first vote. This may well be the beginning of a war. and we are going to have a trade war. You cannot desert this industry at its worst hour. We have to fly the flag. We have to let the world know that we will protect American manufacturers. producers. jobs. It is jobs. Jobs. with "Made in the USA" on them. Vote against the amendment.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. as the distinguished member of the subcommittee has stated. we on our side have no objection to the amendment. We think that it enhances this part of the bill and would urge all of the Members to accept it.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlerpan for yielding. Am I to understand that the time would be divided. a half hour. a half hour. and a half hour?
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we have no objection. because we have the same concern. in that we have many Members from the eastern seaboard. from the Carolinas up to the Northeast. and we would like to see that they get ahead of this hurricane that is on the way. We do not want to impose a time element on them. so we would have no objection to that agreement.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully suggest that we continue with the hour and a half. I do not expect that the two amendments that are pending will be very controversial. aside from this one. and I think they could be handled with. I suppose. 5 minutes on each side. I would hope that would be sufficient. So we might allocate 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin. 5 to him and 5 for any opposition. and continue with the hour and a half. That would still have us finish at about 3:30 or so.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just again rise to interject what we feel are accurate figures. The CBO estimates that the assessment would never reach 50 cents. so it is no money taken away from the proposal.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do so to make mention of one fact. Probably throughout this amendment and the rest of the bill. we will be hearing the phrase called "market clearing." Somehow this gives the connotation that it is good for the farmer. the dairy farmer. or the wheat farmer. the producer of any kind. It is not. What market clearing means is that you sell at the dump price. regardless of your cost of production. So I wanted the membership and my colleagues to remember now when someone says market clearing. that means that it is detrimental to the producer. because market clearing has no respect or regard for the cost of production. And the fact is. and the history is. as my colleague from California respectfully mentioned about the great productivity. As the gentleman knows. in the mid1970s. we were flat running out of milk. We had to chase around the world to our friends and our allies saying. "Hey. send milk. send milk." Why were we running out of milk? Because the price had escalated on the grains and the feed because of the Russian grain deal. And the farmer sat there. the milk producer with no control over it whatsoever. That is part of the history that brought us to where we are now. because they came to the Congress. We need to do something.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

So they came to us. and with human error. we overcorrected and it enticed some people in. Then when we saw that. then we started. and the gentleman was a major partner in .the endeavor of starting to reduce again. and to bring also another phrase.that you might hear throughout the debate which is supply and demand. No. it should be demand and supply. This is what we .are trying to do with our basic committee legislation. that we look at the demand. that the Secretary looks at the demand and then we. to the extent we can. put supply in. I do not know why they say supply and demand. It should be demand and supply. And the gentleman has worked assiduously in that respect. So I want to put it into perspective so that we do not go off. and we know what happened. We were running out of milk. We know why we are here. because we overcompensated. We are now trying to bring it back. The fact is that also will be mentioned about the free market. No free market. Every other country in the world that produces milk and its derivative products subsidizes. We try to do the best we can utilizing the farmer cooperation by investing. by reducing. and that is why we need to remain in support of the committee version. I thank the gentleman.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I do so first because we do not seem to have but a few more Members who wish to participate in the debate. There was an amendment that was noticed that would be offered to this section by the gentleman from Wisconsin . I wonder what the gentlemans intentions are now.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman can only utilize 5 minutes. This is under the 5minute rule. If there be objection. the gentleman would be limited to 5 minutes. Plus. we are trying to get the gentleman on an airplane to get him to his district ahead of that hurricane. as he is probably causing more of a furor here than Gloria out there.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me continue with my time against the amendment. One. it is amazing to me and unbelievable that the authors of this amendment know that it will bust the budget. I mean. take whatever figures you want. we are over the budget with this amendment. The committee is under the budget. The President calls us big spenders. People here say that we are the big spenders. Our committee has come in with a balanced bill. with the budget limitation imposed on us in reconciliation and beyond that. and this amendment will. no question. cause about 30 percent. 48.000 farms. to be put out of business. It will not result in lesser consumer prices. The final thing that I would like to leave with you. and it will be mentioned throughout. and I will mention it again. we feel that we are putting money into the farmers pocket. But does he take it to a savings account or does he go to Las Vegas or Ocean City? No way. The farmer. especially the dairy farmer. is but a conduit. The money. if it is taxpayers money. goes to the fellow that supplies all of his equipment. very expensive milking equipment. he has to feed his cattle. The farmer does not hold that money. It goes for rent. for taxes. for feed. for equipment.Ato Main Street. U.S.A. If it is a subsidy. you are subsidizing rural America and Main Street. USA. So do not confuse it with the issue that the farmer is going to get rich. or that this money is going into the farm. ers pocket. It is not. It is not going into the farmers pocket. That is part of the problem. that the costs have escalated. the taxes. the cost of his equipment. the feed for his cattle. All of that has escalated. and we are trying to keep him afloat. That is all we are trying to do.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I do so. and I will not take much time. except that we do not want to confuse the issue with the big manufacturers. and the gentleman has all big dairy producers in his area. but I had a call last week from Naomi Woods of Fort Morgan. CO. and they are .about to lose their farm. 3.700 acres. She told me. "I rise a few hogs. Im not doing very good. We raise a little grain. were not doing very good." She says. "The only reason we are still on the farm is because of the dairy part." And I think she mentioned 100 cows. To tell you something very interesting that impressed me. she .said "Mr Chairman. youve got to do something." I said well. we are trying. She said. "Were in our fifties. My husband and I could still move to Denver." she says. "but we cant all move to Denver. All of rural Colorado cant move to Denver." She says. "Theyve . already closed the sugar mill. theyve already closed the grain elevator. theyve already closed the slaughterhouse." and it would be foolish. really. td think that shutting down rural America. that cutting down 48.000 farmswhere are they going to go? They are going to go to Denver. New York. Chicago. Omaha. and the cost to the Government is going to be insurmountable. much more. I sat there and the. lady cried. I felt real badly and I felt "We ought to do something." So it is not the big guy. it is Naomi Woods from Fort Morgan. CO.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

iMr. Chairman. reserving the right to object. I would inquire of the distinguished gentleman from New York if this is one of the casein amendments.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Regretfully I will make the point of order at the request of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade who insists on claiming his jurisdiction. He has assured me and asked me to assure the gentleman from New York and others that he will forthwith. look at this issue and address this issue and have whatever hearings are necessary.* I sympathize. I appreciate the great work the gentleman from New York has done. the author of the amendment. But I have no alternative.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have no alternative but to yield to the jurisdictional request of the chairman of the subcommittee who clearly under the rules has jurisdiction. If it were up to the gentleman from Texas. we would discuss it. But basically the jurisdiction lies in another committee. I do not want any problem with another committee. and we want to have them on our side when we discuss the issues before them. as properly it should be done.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman. at N would add further in behalf of the this point. I insist on my point of Ing committee that we will accept the gen- order. tlemans amendment and would coop- Mr. Chairman. this amendment a sid erate with him in his endeavor. dresses the Food and Drug Act. which RE(
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rect in understanding that the distin- tic reserve a point of order at this time on guished chairmans point of order is yea the amendment. against the amendment to my amend- to
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I apologize to my colleagues for using the phrase again that we worked very diligently to have a bill that was compatible with the needs. the broad spectrum that we could formulate for all of the issues that we were addressing in our farm bill. Dairy Is one of those. Very simply. we have a provision in the legislation. in the permanent legislation. We have marketing orders here and here and there throughout this country. The gentleman from Wisconsin had a poster there which showed where they were. Now. the price that you stipulate under the legislation and the support has differences. and in many instances very simply it costs more to bring from this area of the United States to the area in need. All we do is that we provide a differential so that we can keep the price equalized. This is all that the bill does. This will strike out that section of the bill and allow the status quo. which causes a hardship in particular areas of our country. We do not want tocause a hardship. We do not attempt to discriminate the high producing areas. So this. under what we call the unity bill. the original version of the committee. is an attempt to bring equity. to see that those that have the surplus that in some instances may be mandated under the marketing order. or legislation. that we equalize to the extent possible so that the consumer may not
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time at this point. Mr. Chairman. this is plainly what I was speaking about. Our unity bill tries to keep equity and keep balance. We should not have. we cannot have regional differences. So let us knock the amendment out and avoid all these regional problems that we might have in trying to move our unity bill.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I am happy to inform my distinguished colleague. that the chairman of the subcommittee and I. as chairman of the committee. in consultation with our membership on this side would accept the gentlemans amendment.
Date: 1985-09-26
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. Again. Mr. Chairman. I make the plea: Let us keep the unity. This amendment disrupts that very delicate arrangement that we have. We think we can do as best we can for the American dairy producer. and I would hope that the membership would vote against the amendment.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have no firm information except that there is some desire on the Senate side to send us a resolution or legislation attached to another bill of some kind for a continuation for x number of days. That is basically all of the information I can give the gentleman. with the exception that I understand it would have to be done on Monday.
Date: 1985-09-26
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is the last day of the fiscal year. I think we could drag it for a few days. but technically it should be done then. But I have no firm information on that.
Date: 1985-09-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I take this 1 minute to inform my colleagues that soon I will ask unanimous consent to bring up the bill. H.R. 3454. with which we have the same problem as the distinguished members of the Ways and Means Committee. There are several agriculturerelated laws that expire at the end of this fiscal year. The legislation which we hope to bring up by unanimous consent is to extend them for 45 days. Both sides are agreedthe minority and the majority. We had expected to have a bill from the Senate. but unfortunately. they were somewhat delayed. So we will endeavor to start on this side and approve the legislation and forward it to the Senate in order that it might be sent to the President today. Mr. Speaker. it is our intention to do this. this afternoon. I cannot say anymore than that it is needed for technical reasons and very practical reasons in that a couple of those laws will entail a lot of money. If they are not extended. they would end at the fiscal year and revert to permanent law which would be much more expensive. We are working on. H.R. 2100. the farm legislation we are trying now to modify and extend for several years.
Date: 1985-09-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Conimittee on Agriculture be discharged from further consideration of the bill to extend temporarily certain provisions of law. and ask for its immediate consideration.
Date: 1985-09-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding.The bill as introduced extends the Food Stamp Program. all of the Food Stamp Program. and it includes also a special provision for Puerto Rico. The bill also extends the dairy program. which would expire at the end of the fiscal year. This is very important. I might add. if the gentleman will allow me to proceed. because. if not extended. it will. revert to permanent law. and the permanent law is much more expensive than what we are operating under now or what is expected from the legislation in the farm bill. We also have a provision to extend a pilot program for the elderly in the food stamp SSI cashout which is being studied. Then it has a technical provision for the cotton program. and this would entail the crop that has just been picked or is in the process of being picked. That is the extent of the legislation. Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will yield further and will allow me to proceed. I might add that we have been informed that the Senate is agreeable. and that this provision of 45 days is a compromise. I personally would have preferred 30 days. The Senate began with 60 days. and we have compromised at 45 days. and we have beenassured that they will pick up the legislation when passed and then forward it on to the President.
Date: 1985-09-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this is the cotton provision. It is .basically technical in nature. and it is required H 7902" because the 1986 cotton loan rate is tied to the 1986 upland cotton loan rate. That will not be finalized until we have finished with the farm legislation. So we are suspending it in order that this may go into effect when the farm legislation is approved. There was no controversy on this section in the farm legislation at all. but we are getting ahead of it. We have to suspend it pending the farm bill and.reinstate it in the proper sequence in the legislation.
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. I Mr. Chairman. I take this time to advise my colleagues that we hare 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 some 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.