macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1989-11-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to address the House regarding S. 974. as amended. the Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989. S. 974 was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on August 30. 1989. and passed the Senate on September 20. 1989. The bill was sent to the House on October 2 and jointly referred to the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs considered S. 974 and reported it with amendments on November 9. 1989. In the interest of expediting consideration of the measure by the Hoase. and in particular to respond to requests received from Senator HARRY REID of Nevada and the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. the Committee on Agriculture agreed to waive consideration of the bill. However. we do remain interested in this measure and in the general subject of wilderness designation on national forest system lands. and will continue to exercise our jurisdiction In this regard in the future. Mr. Chairman. we do not oppose passage of S. 974. as amended. The bill is essentially similar to one which passed the House last year. In this year of the 25th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. it seems fitting that this measure should come before the House today. Nevada isone of only three Western States that has failed to complete action on a statewise wilderness act to add lands to the national wilderness preservation system. S. 974. as amended. would add approximately 733.000 acres in 14 areas to the National Wilderness Preservation System. I am particularly pleased that S. 974. as amended. includes language to provide for the release of some 2.4 million acres of national forest lands not designated by the act for Inclusion in the wilderness system. to be managed for multiple use purposes. Our experience has been that failure to resolve wilderness issues in a comprehensive manner and to provide for release of remaining lands only leads to continued confrontation between supporters and opponents of wildernessto the detriment of the individuals and communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods. and. ultimately. to the detriment of the environment we all seek to protect. The release and sufficiency language in S. 974. as amended. Is similar to that which has been Incorporated into other statewide wilderness bills. Its Inclusion is critical to permitting the Forest Service to go ahead with its job of protecting wildland resources while also ensuring a sustained flow of the goods and services needed to permit businesses and communities to plan for the future. Mr. Chairman. as always. the Committee on Agriculture remains committed to working with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on matters such as thesematters which are important for assuring the conservation and protection of the Nations public lands. As we look down the road to possibly dealing with wilderness issues in the two States which have yet to resolve this statewide wilderness debate. I pledge our continued cooperation.
Date: 1989-11-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I will tell my distinguished colleague that I do not intend this. and hope that it is not taken as a precedent that we would go bill by bill and issue by issue. This certainly. as I stated in my original statement that we insist on maintaining our jurisdiction. and we would look at every piece of legislation that falls into the category where they have either a joint or sequential referral that we would like specifically at that particular bill. In this situation we felt that. by the request of the Senator from Nevada. and working with the subcommittee in the Interior. that the issues had been addressed and that there was nonunanimity. That is uniortunate. However. we were satisfied that the issues were addressed. but in no way do we yield on our responsibility on oversight and jurisdiction for any future event.
Date: 1989-11-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman. and I assure him and all of my colleagues from the West that would yet be impacted with this issue that we would be very happy to work with him and cooperate with him in a responsible way. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Minnesota .
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: JOHN CONYERS (democrat)
Chamber: H

along with the gentleman from .New York. Mr. HORTON. who is the ranking minority member on that committee. and especially to the gentlewoman from Illinois. Mrs. CARWISS COLLINS. the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation. also the gentleman from Utah.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Cngress that all railroad retirement benefits are exempt from sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and that any such benefits sequestered under the Presidential order of October 16. 1989. should be restored.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to yield blocks of time.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I commend Representative WHITTAKERt for his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor of the House. It is unfortunate that the administration has again refused to implement the law that protects railroad retirees from the GrammRudman hatchet. I thought we had educated the Office of Management and Budget properly 2 years ago. In 1987. over our strenuous objection. President Reagan included certain railroad retirement benefits. commonly called tier II benefits. in his sequestration order. Congress ultimately restored those benefits to railroad retirees and their families. And both the General Accounting Office and the Comptroller General later issued reports finding that Congress had exempted railroad retirement benefits from the effect of the budget laws and that OMBs actions were wrong. But here we go again. On October 16. 1989. President Bush ordered acrosstheboard reductions for certain Federal programs. And OMB. in all of its glory and wisdom. Implemented the Presidents order by chopping payments to railroad retirees. Despite the fact that it is the law. despite the fact that the General Accounting Office found that no sequestration should occur. despite the fact that the Comptroller General found that no sequestration should occur. we are back at square one again. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that these benefits should be restored immediately. What it does not adequately convey is the sense of outrage the Members of our subcommittee feel about this issue. Tens of thousands of railroad employees worked long and hard for these benefits. The Congress believes their benefits should remain intact. And yet the administration has again refused to follow the law. The amounts which have been sequestered from the payments made to some 200.000 railroad retirees and their families may not seem like much. But for thousands of families. the amounts which are being wrongfully withheld could make the difference in putting food on the table. or paying this months rent. It is high time for the administration to stop this illegal effort which affects so many. Cor fress knew what it was doing when it exempted these payments from sequestration. OMBs sleightofhand in changing account numbers does not alter the crystal clear congressional intent expressed in amendments to GrammRudman. It is the law. And even OMB should be required to follow the law. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and commend Mr. WHITTAKER for his leadership in this important matter.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (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. and include extraneous material. on House Concurrent Resolution 220. the concurrent resolution just agreed to.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the Department of Transportation Act to reauthorize local rail service assistance. as amended.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the purpose of the bill which is now before the House is to reauthorize the Local Rail Service Assistance Act. This littlenoticed statute has played a vital role in ensuring the continuation of rail service to small communities and other areas where the large railroads are not able to provide rail service on an economical basis. The need for the programs continuation is clear. Over the last 15 years the large railroads have abandoned or downgraded thousands of miles of rail lines in the face of sharply declining traffic. Since 1980. more than 200 new short line railroads have emerged to purchase and rehabilitate branch lines that are no longer profitable to the larger corporations. The problem for new short lines. however. is scraping together the startup costs necessary to begin operations. Though these small railroads can generally earn operating profits. they cannot always afford the high acquisition and rehabilitation costs of beginning operation on a light density line. The local rail service assistance funds have been used effectively to make many of these startup rail projects possible while preserving jobs and continuing rail service.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (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 and Include extraneous matter on H.R. 422. the bill just passed.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this bill does five things. First. it will authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to help us by acting as construction manager for any projects that already receive Federal funds. Second. the bill will give the Army Corps a role in assessing the damages to beaches in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and reporting back to Congress on its findings and recommendations. Third. it will raise the ceiling on emergency road repairs in the U.S. territories. just as the national ceiling recently was raised for other areas damaged by the hurricane and earthquake. Fourth. It directs the Federal Highway Administration to station two technicians or engineers in the U.S. Islands to help with rebuilding our roads. And finally. It will increase the Federal ceiling on a desperately needed flood control project. but keep in place the 25 percent local match. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. the distinguished gentleman from California. to the ranking minority member. the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas. the gentleman from New York. chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources. the gentleman from California. chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and to my cosponsors and the many others who have offered bipartisan support. and helped to move this urgently needed bill to the floor today. I also want to commend both majority and minority members of the committee staff. as well as my own administrative assistant. who have devoted a great deal of effort to this bill. I urge immediate passage of this bill.
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: WALTER JONES (democrat)
Chamber: H

and the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. ranking minority member of the committee. Mr. ROBERT DAVIS. I would also like to thank my esteemed colleagues from the Pacific for their strong support of this measurethe distinguished gentleman from Gunan. Mr. BEN BLAz. the distinguished gentleman and gentlewoman from Hawaii. Mr. DANIEL AgAKA and
Date: 1989-11-17
Speaker: PETER DEFAZIO (democrat)
Chamber: H

and Mr. Ls AUCoiN. the distinguished gentlemen from California. Mr. ROBERT LAGOMAHSINO and Mr. ROBERT DORNAN. and my friend from the Midwest. the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. Mr.
Date: 1989-11-20
Speaker: GENE TAYLOR (democrat)
Chamber: H

GENE TAYLOR has been very active in helping resolve the vessel complement problems in the Gulfport area. and while a new Member he has done a remarkable Job in bringing that issue to a conclusion successfully. I want to compliment him on his efforts as well as thank all the Members for their cooperation. Mr. Speaker. I have no further requests for time. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1989-11-20
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. I rise today to Introduce the Waste Materials Management Act of 1989. This omnibus reauthorization of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is a bipartisan effort and I commend my colleague Mr. WHITTAKER. ranking minority member of the subcommittee. for his support and guidance. I also commend and congratulate the other cosponsors [RICHARDSON.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to clarify the Food Security Act of 1985. with Senate amendments thereto. and concur In the Senate amendments.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker. this is the bill which corrects a technical need In the Food Security Act of 1985. We found that on Indian reservations principally. although the bill will now apply generally to everyone. if there was some impropriety with the agriculture commodity programs. the whole tribe was penalized rather than the individual. This bill corrects that. We would now have it that if there is any discrepancy with the rules of the program. the penalty would apply solely to the individual and not to the ownership or to the tribe or to the persons who own the land.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that. notwithstanding the end of the session. all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation just adopted.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this legislation will waive certain provisions of the Food Stamp Act to allow the State of Minnesota to conduct a 5year demonstration project called the Minnesota Family Investment Plan [MFIPI. an alternative to the current Food Stamp and AFDC Programs for families with minor children. The bill is Indentical to H.R. 3744. a bill Introduced by Congressman TiM PENNY of Minnesota. Under the plan. Minnesota would combine AFDC. Food Stamps. and the States general assistance program into a single unified program with one sot of simplified rules and one cash grant to the household. Eligible families. however. may elect to receive a designated portion of their total assistance in the form of food coupons. The new program will have standardized eligibility rules and benefit levels. All MFIP households. including those receiving food stamps. will be m.ade automatically eligible for Medicaid. Households. with certain exceptions. will be required to take advantage of all available education and training services. Working would always be more profitable than not working. The authority to waive certain provisions of the AFDC program to permit MFIP to take its place is included in H.R. 3299. the reconciliation bill. The State of Minnesota has been working on the concept of MFIP since 1986 and has Incorporated in the plan several provisions of a similar program now being carried out by the State of Washington. The demonstration will be outlay neutral to the Federal Government. although the evaluation required of the demonstration project will cost less than $500.000 annually over the 5year poriod according to the Congressional Budget Office. Minnesotas Legislature has passed legislation specifying that the State will pay all costs above what would normally be those costs of the Federal Government in conducting separate AFDC and Food Stamp Programs. TheAgriculture Committees Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing. Consumer Relations. and Nutrition held a hearing last July on the proposed project. Since that time. this legislation has been fine tuned to merit the full support of both the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture. the State of Minnesota. the administration. and the low Income and food advocacy groups. I applaud the work of Minnesota in developIng this very worthwhile project and urge passage of this legislation.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. During the last Congress. the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs. which I am privileged to chair. dedicated most of its efforts to the smallest of the eight insular areas: the western Pacific Islands of Palau. These efforts were focused on a proposed Compact of Free Association with Palau. They led the House to pass legislation to authorize the compact.to be put into effect in October of last year with 406 votes. In the closing hours of the 100th Congress. a compromise was reached on this legislation. Under it. the Reagan administration committee to fulfill the requirements of the House legislation without being required to do so by statute if the House would pass the Senate version with one mutually agreedupon amendment. Unfortunately. the commitments that made the compromise possible were delivered literally minutes too late to enable the compromise to be enacted last year. Also unfortunately. the Reagan administration didnt follow through on the compromise. The ranking Republican of the Insular and International Affairs Subcommittee. Bon LAGOMARSINO. promised in January. though. that the Bush administration would. So. in March. 65 Members joined me in sponsoring House Joint Resolution 175. the legislation that the compromise requires regarding Palau. I said then I would seek action when the Bush administration did what it could to implement the compromise. I suggested an addition to the compact be agreed to with Palau that would commit the United States to fulfill the requirements of the last Congress House legislation.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I want to say that no one has worked harder than the gentleman from California. and It is a pleasure to have worked with him on this. and perhaps some more babies will be named after the gentleman from California to recognize this success. I join with him in commending not only all of the other Members of Congress that he named. but also the staff who worked so hard.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LUGO (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 and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 175. the Joint resolution Just considered.
Date: 1989-11-21
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am rising on behalf of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Senate amendments to the bill. H.R. 1727 expands the boundaries of the Everglades National Park. and modifies an existing Corps of Engineers flood control project to permit a new schedule of water deliveries to the park and restore natural water flows. When this bill was being considered in the House. it was referred to our Committee on Public Works and Transportation because of provisions it contained relating to flood protection for residential and agricultural areas. We amended the bill to expand the flexibility available to the Secretary of the Army to respond to possible flooding of these areas caused by the new water deliveries. The Senate has amended these provisions. and these amendments are acceptable to us. I would. however. like to clarify a few points. In section 104(d)1. It is stated that an adverse effect must be attributable solely to a project modification. What this means is that damage to crops or lands which might occur without the modified water delivery schedules in place would not be considered an adverse effect. However. any damages attributable to a modification would be an adverse effect. It is also stated that the modification must result in a substantial reduction in the economic utility of an area based on its present agricultural use. This would not include insignificant or small fluctuating reductions in crop yields. but would include significant reductions in crop yield or utilization of the land. and would encompass both long and short term damages to crops such as reduced yield or destruction of a particular crop. Finally. the measures which the Secretary may undertake to prevent damage to agricultural areas may include nonstructural as well as structural measures. Mr. Speaker. I urge passage of the bill.
Date: 1990-01-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. we take this time today to visit with our colleagues as to what the state of agriculture is today. Where we are. Where we have come from. And to provide Congress with an update. particularly about the 1985 farm bill. telling the public why farm programs are needed and how agriculture is the foundation of our national economy. Seventeen percent of the total GNP is from agriculture. It is our largest employer. Twentyone million people work in all segments of agriculture. Farming itself employs over 2 million workers. more than the combined workforce of transportation. steel. and the automobile industries. Without a healthy agriculture sector. our economy suffers. What we hope to do today is to ask the chairmen and ranking members of the different subcommittees to give Members a report from their perspective as subcommittee chairmen. and also the issues under the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. Mr. Speaker. I yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing. Consumer Relations. and Nutrition. the gentleman from Georgia .
Date: 1990-01-30
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks. Let me say that the Food Stamp. Nutrition and School Lunch programs. and Meals for the Elderly. are important and all are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Let me address one issue. Somehow. I daresay for no other reason than lack of information. people speak about the cost of agricultural programs and how much we spend on agriculture. I must say. this is sensationalized in the major media by people with inadequate information. If a person were just to do away with the entire Department of Agriculture. he would reduce the Federal budget by under 4 percent. This. my friends. is important to note. We erase the word "agriculture." and we would reduce the budget by less than 4 percent. The farm support programs that they say we pay the farmers not to farm is less than 1 percent of the $1.23 trillion budget. Less than 1 percent of the trillion dollarplus budget goes to support farm price support programs. Let me show Members what I mean. The red markings on this chart are the $1.23 trillion budget. If we look at the black on this chart. thiat is what we spend on support for American agriculture. That small black line we see on the chart is what we spend on support. Yet. we are the bestfed people in the world. The average farm family produces food for around 100 people. and the cost of food is less of the disposable income per family than that of any other major industrialized country in the world. This is what we do for that tiny. small black portion that we could not even see on the chart. Mr. Speaker. I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. the gentleman from Illinois .