macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate that. The gentleman has made. I think. explicitly clear the point that I would like to make. I would like my colleagues to kindly please remember this. Those of us who have worked with this issue since the inception of CFTC in 1975 have had under consideration continuous oversight and evaluation of the furictioning of the commodity markets and the needs of those who are. participants in the market in the buying and selling of futures contracts. Therefore. we do not believe with all due respect. that because others may be subject to user fees that there should be user fees imposed on the commodity industry. Well. that is not the American system basically. The Communists may say that everybody will have a white house with three rooms. with a white picket fence. with a little Ford or whatever car in front and everyone will be equal and every agency will do the same. It does not operate the same way in a democracy. in our Government. The Stock Exchange has a function and definite needs. The Security and Exchange Commission has a function and definite needs. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has a function and definite needs. and they cannot all be the same. They cannot all be a copy or a clone of the other. Now. as far as the taxpayers are concerned. we have concerns for the taxpayer. The Agriculture Committee is a committee that has reduced its expenditures. both for the committee and for the Department of Agriculture. more than any other committee in this House. We are the ones who have thought of the taxpayers and contributed our knowledge and expertise to reduce the impact of their budgets on the taxpayers. That is the reason that I perhaps was one of the most vocal in telling the industry that something had to be done. Mr. Stockman. who called for a veto of this legislation. would not give the money. would not give the CFTC the money to do what they need to do. so we had to impose on the industry somewhat against their wishes and with this legislation. this compromise amendment that we have in the bill that Mr. CONABLE wishes to strike out. It should reduce the cost of the CFTC by basically onehalf. The NFA will bring in some $12 million that will be used to reduce the impact on the taxpayers of the operations of the CFTC. Therefore. we are contributing almost onehalf their current budget. That will buy more school lunches. That will give more Pell grants. This reduction of the necessity of expenditure for the CFTC by the work that the NFA will do will acrue to the benefit of the taxpayers. The money that they will bring from fees and charges imposed on their members to do work that is now being done by the CFTC will reduce. I tell you the need for funds by the CFTC. If the budget is $23 million now and the work that will be done. by the NFA is replacement for work formerly done by the CFTC is worth $12 million. then the CFTC is saved $12 million.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. The gentleman is entirely wrong. That is a good argument. 6 cents or 12 cents. that is not the argument.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. The argument is that this gentleman feels that he has a moral obligation to comply with an endeavor that he started long before the gentleman had ever become acquainted with the CFTC.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work and the dilligence of our colleague. the gentleman from Iowa . The fact is. though. Mr. Chairman. that this would be entirely disruptive of the CFTC Jurisdiction and authorization. It would be unworkable due to the fact that not only do the cattle producers trade or engage in purchases of the commodity but there are other people engaged in purchases of the commodity such as processors and packers. The fact is. as the gentleman from Iowa well knows. that for anyone interested in any new contracts submitted to the CFTC for approval. there are necessary timeframes within which producers or anyoae interested can present their views and have an impact. The CFTC supervises this. and that is the agency to which we have given the authority. To open It up and set a precedent that contracts or proposed contracts by exchanges. for example. would be put to a referendum separate and apart from comment periods in the Federal Register and hearings as necessary. I think the gentleman would agree with me. would present a problem. I have no problem with the gentlemans intent. I would agree with the gentleman on that. and I would work with him in any way I can. but I think to open contracts to referendum by producers would have a devastating effect. What would we do then with wheat. with corn. or with petroleum?
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would tell the gentleman now that I join with him In telling the industry. the CFTC to take a look at this contract and to try and improve it if it needs improvement. If that does not meet with the requirements of the gentleman. then of course we would offer the gentleman hearings at the appropriate time. But I join with the gentleman now.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I will tell the gentleman most assuredly. Our committee has a continuing committee on over_ight and on the needs of our agriculture and our people. Any time that a need presents itself. it is our responsibility to have adequate hearings and to proceed accordingly after testimony is presented. Again. I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman because of its technical aspects. not because of the intent and the diligence of the gentleman. I concur with that and will do everything that I can to assist the gentleman in that endeavor.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. the gentleman has a valid concern that I agree with. His amendment. though. I am not satisfied is drafted technically to do exactly what he wants to do. Besides. I would like to inform the gentlemanhe already knows. because he has read the legislationin the study to be conducted and led by the Federal Reserve. we have provisions that take care of his concerns. The study requires information on the sufficiency of the public policy tools available tb the Commission or other agencies to limit or curtail any such trading activity which is found likely to have a harmful effect on national economic goals. That Is part of the study. Second. the study calls for the adequacy of investor protection afforded to participants in designated markets for such trading. that is another part of the study. Finally. the extent to which contracts and related instruments may be utilized to manipulate or to profit from the manipulation of the markets for evidences of indebtedness. foreign currency and securities. is another part of the study. It encompasses overall what the gentleman attempts to do. I hope that that might sati3fy the gentleman and that the Federal Reserve and the designated agencies would look Into that situation. My concern is that the amendment does not define "individual who has access to information." and this conceivably impose criminal sanctions upon a farmer. completely away from the market if he should perchance fall into any information. It does not say from what source. Now. an insider or somebody working solely in the Exchange or solely with a broker. that already has been addressed. But my concern is with the refinement of "individual" and the refinement of "information" I think would be necessary before we would accept this amendment. The thrust of the gentlemans amendment I have no problem with.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. that still does not cure it. An individual can be a farmer trying to plan for his commodities. a cattle feeder or a poultry producer. They could not hedge their future needs for grains if they were on a plane and they heard someone from some company say. "Hey. look. I think that this might happen or that might happen." Now. I do not know. again. how you would enforce this. how you would find out who. as an insider defined by the gentleman. had information. What is the enforcement procedure? How are we going to find out that someone who traded had insider information? So we are left. then. to haphazard. by accident or by innuendo or by someone who does not like him. How would we address that issue?
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Perhaps we owe the gentleman that. for the work that he has done. with no obligation on our part. Perhaps it could be refined. because we agree with his basic intent. we would accept his amendment. to take it to conference for possible refinement. to see if we can do what the gentleman would like to do.
Date: 1982-09-23
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 the bill Just passed.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I send to the desk a concurrent resolution extending to the Graduate School. U.S. Department of Agriculture. the appreciation of the Congress on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the school. and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with development of the WEB pipeline. to provide for the study of South Dakota water projects to be developed In lieu of the Oahe and PollockHerreid irrigation projects. and to make available Missouri basin pumping power to projects authorized by the Flood.Control Act of 1944 to receive such power. with a Senate amendment thereto. and concur In the Senate amendment.
Date: 1982-09-23
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 the Senate amendment just concurred in.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. H.R. 5540. the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act is aimed at the most critical segment of the American economy in need of help today. There are. at present. about 25.000 prime contractors engaged in defenserelated production. These are the Rockwells. the Boeings. the United Technologies. and the TRWs. They rest their case for completion of their commitments to production very heavily on the nearly 50.000 second and third level suppliers that make up the support network so integral to that production. Many of these smaller companies are in trouble. Their machinery is antiquated in many instances. and a large number of their skilled operators are getting ready for retirement. The average age of a machinetool operator today. in the United States. is 58. and he works on a machine that has been in place on the average 27 years. The systems ability to produce in quantity. in quality. and most importantin timeis a matter of debate and doubt. That is what H.R. 5540 is all about. It is an answer to the plaguing question: If the United States has to expand its capacities rapidly in order to accelerate national production buildupcan that system deliver. in quantity. in quality. and in time? Mr. Chairman. next month we will observe the 25th anniversary of Sputnik. The meaning of Sputniks message passing overhead with its "beep. beep. beep" galvanized this country into undertaking a crash program to upgrade and expand our production of scientists and engineers. Our sense of apprehension resulting from Sputnik did not end until we had landed on the Moon. and reasserted our claim to be recognized as a nation with a firstrate industrial base. Today. the health of that industrial base again is being questioned and challenged. WL vill need 223.000 tool and diemrake. by 1987. Can e produce 360.000 electrical engineers. 60.000 metal molders. 547.000 computer specialists. and 1.8 million ntechanicsall by 1987? That is what H.R. 5540 is all about. It is an important first step in the direction of targetting a nationwide effort to overcome the implications of these figures. It confronts the need we have for highly trained. welleducated people to operate increasingly complicated production systems. It offsets the problems of blue collar workers being displaced from their traditional jobs by offering them retraining opportunities. It is a safety net. to be placed beneath those critical sectors of our industrial system that show every indication of eventual collapse due to a lack of adequately trained and skilled manpower. and modern equipment. Passage of this legislation can lead to new national emphasis on matching what we know how to do with the work that must be done.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: WILLIAM J. COYNE (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I offer a technical amendment to subsection (1) that calls for an infrastructure study by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. could the gentleman tell me how the Secretary of the Treasury will determine that such loan. loan guarantee. or commitment for loan guarantee will not tend to- increase interest rates in the credit markets and will not adversely affect the thrift industry?
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. the gentleman is stating that an estimate -or determination of a specific loan or loan guarantee will have that effect. Frankly. I think that requires the wisdom of Job. I think it is impossible of administras tion. and It places on the Secretary of the TreasuryI do not know the relit gion of the gentleman. but the Holy - Ghost could not come up with this one t under my Catholic religion. r Mr. McCOLLUM. I would submit to I the gentleman from Rhode Island there is no question that right now a y further loan guarantee would not. In Sfact Increase the interest rates In this f country. but at such point in the Mfuture timewhich the Secretary of -Treasury could easily determine that r we are not In fact continuing this ex- pansion of the deficit on the Federal ledger from our borrowing and at such hperiod of time when e begin to see interest rates coming donit is obvious we do not have such period at this I point In time.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. does the gentleman support and has the gentleman supported the administrations request in the area of defense spending?
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

A iot of people have gotten religion since it Is getting close to November 2. After November 2. If the gentleman is reelected. I wonder If the gentleman will continue to vote for a large defense budget as the gentleman did last year.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill. H.R. 5447. as passed by the House. the Clerk be authorized to make corrections in section numbers. crossreferences and other technical changes to reflect the Intent of the amendments adopted by the House.
Date: 1982-09-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the House Committee on Agriculture may have until midnight. Sunday. September 26. to file reports on the following bills:
Date: 1982-09-24
Speaker: W AXMAN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to replace title XV of such act with a block grant to States for health planning.
Date: 1982-09-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am pleased that the fiscal year 1983 appropriation bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies includes funding for many needed voterans programs. Through the years I have been a consistent supporter of legislation to improve veterans programs. including education. training. rehabilitation. medical care and pension and compensation programs. This bill includes the funding necessary to carry out these needed programs and to meet this countrys obligation to the men and women who have served in the military. I am also pleased that funding to address some of the problems facing our Vietnamera veterans in particuJarfunding for readjustment assistance. counseling and agent orange research programsis included in this bill.
Date: 1982-09-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. before the Senator proceeds. I wish to thank the distinguished majority leader for calling up this measure. as he indicated on yesterday that he would. I thank him for his very kind remarks in my behalf.
Date: 1982-09-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. may I ask the distinguished acting Republican leader whether or not there will be any more rollcall votes today?
Date: 1982-09-24
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I would like to bring the Senates attention to the comments of a truly charming. beautiful. and remarkably intelligent woman. Mrs. Pamela Harriman. Excerpts of a speech Mrs. Harriman recently gave at the Wall Street Club were printed in the September 19. 1982. edition of the New York Times. In her comments. Mrs. Harriman examines the imbalance of financial resources available respectively to the National Democratic and Republican parties and insightfully discusses the longrange implication this imbalance might have on the twoparty system. I urge my colleagues to take note of these remarks. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. reserving the right to object. I hope the distinguished majority leader will not push this request at this moment. I very much hope that the Senate can proceed to the consideration of this measure and that the 3day rule can be waived on this side of the aisle. I also hope that there can be a time agreement worked oft on the measure. I hope that the number of amendments to this bill may be limited to as few as possible because the Senate will have another crack at the continuing resolution when it comes back on November 29. I would hope that on those few amendments there can be time agreements. However. I would have to say that. in my judgment. after discussing the matter with my colleagues. there would have to be an Identification of the amendments that are intended to be called up. I would like to see an agreement which would allow us to work not necessarily late into the evening but if late into the evening to schedule votes for tomorrow morning. I would like to see an agreement. as the distinguished majority leader and I have discussed. which would see us complete action on the continuing resolution by 1 or 2 oclock tomorrow so that the conference can take place as expeditiously as possible and the conference report brought back to the two bodies. This would be in line with the conversations I have had with the majority leader. with the distinguished chairman of the committee
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. as a cosponsor of that bill. I would be agreeable to 1 hour. equally divided. on the amendment. Does Mr. METZENBAUM have an amendment?
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

What the Senator from Nebraska is saying is that if an amendment dealing with Radio Marti is ruled out and would not be called up. he would have no objection to a waiver of the 3day rule entering into an agreement?
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I assume the majority leader is seeking to get an agreement that lays out the amendments. identifies them. provides time limitations on them. He is seeking agreement that will try to get the S 12103 Senate to complete action on t hi measure by 12. 1. or 2 p.m. tomorrow. I share that desire on his part. I can understanding what the Senator from Ohio is saying. if he can be assured that certain other amendmentswell. all amendments are identified and if he sees among those the amendment that he does not want included. whether or not he can agree would depend on that. Mr. METZEN13AUM. As usual. the Senator from West Virginia clearly understands the Senator from Ohio.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

May I say. Mr. President. to the majority leader that as of now it appears that the following amendments would be called up on our side of the aisle: three amendments by Mr. BUMPERS. one dealing with the breeder reactor. he in conjunction with Mr. HUMPHREY. One amendment dealing with proclaiming Peace .Day. and did I understand a third amendment from Mr. BUMPiRS?
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

So there would be three. Am I also correct in saying that on the public land disposal limitation language the Senator would be agreeable to 15 minutes equally divided?
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

On the proclaiming of Peace Day. 15 minutes equally divided. that Mr. KENNEDY hag a jobs amendment on which there would be 1 hour equally divided. We would like to have an upordown vote on that. I say to the majority leader. On the unemployment situation. Mr. METZENBAUM has an amendment on which he would agree to 1 hour. and he wishes an upanddown vote on that.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Forty minutes equally divided. And then in addition to these. Mr. PROXMIRE. I think. has an amendment on which he ageeed to 10 minutes. was it. equally divided?
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

And an amendment by Mr. SASSER. ban on hydroelectric pricing studies. 30 minutes. an amendment by Mr. NUNN to extend the authority of the Presidents Commission on Ethical Problems in Medicine to March 1983. which would be a 3month extension. 20 minutes equally divided. and amendment by Mr. MOYNmAN dealing with reimbursement of medicare expenses to States. 30 minutes equally divided.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

He has an amendment in conjunction with Mr. HOLLINGS and Mr. LEvIN on the MX on which there will be 1 hour. Mr. HOLLINGs has an amendment on the Bi and MX. maybe one or both. and he had not decided as to the time limitation.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Twenty minutes equally divided. two amendments by Mr. DECONCINI. one of the SBA. one on the Treasury bill revenue ruling. on each of which he would agree to 30 minutes equally divided.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. President. I am cognizant of the fact that we have Members on our side who are unwilling to give agreement unless they know the identity of the amendments that come from the other side.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

One DeConcini amendment dealing with the Small Business Administration. That is all I have on it just now. And one dealing with Treasury bill revenue ruling. We will attempt to get further information for the Senator.
Date: 1982-09-28
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

I say to the majority leader that that is about all I can offer from my side. There are certain of those amendments that we have time limitations on that have been stated. I assume that Senators will be willing. if the majority leader proceeds. to tie down time limitations on those amendments at this time. We are not waiving the 3day rule yet. and we are not agreeing to a full time limit on the bill. but I hope we can do that.