macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1993-06-15
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the substitute. Let me point out some changes in the substitute that have not been addressed by Members. One. the 10 weeks would allow for a business. for example. to build up inventory for that 10 weeks and hold out if their real intent is to break the union. they would hold out for that 10 weeks. Sure. we can go through all the mechanism of trying to settle it through mediation. but they can still hold out for that 10 weeks and then permanently replace them. Let me point out. under the secret ballot sectionand I think Congressman Wauzus pointed out that this only applied to the one side and not to both sides. so if it is going to really be a compromise. it should apply both ways and not just to the unionbut in that section where It talks about secret ballot to call an economic strike. unless a referendum is conducted by secret ballot with the majority of employees in the bargaining unit. some of you may not know how that actually works because you may not have been into a union hall where they call a strike. but that bargaining unit may be 25 members. for example. and there may be only 15 or 17 members who are union members. who now vote on that strike vote. The bargaining unit is all 25. So you are actually changing law right now that says we are going to have these nonunion employees coming in ahead of them and vote on that strike vote. I hope that is not what you are trying to do in changing the law by saying It Is only a 10week coolingoff period because this amendment makes many other changes other than the 10weeks coolingoff period. Ten weeks is bad enough. but the other change in this amendment that is not explained makes it even worse.
Date: 1993-06-16
Speaker: DENNIS JETT (democrat)
Chamber: H

Acting Senior Director for African Affairs. National Security Council. The White House. Washington. DC. DEAR MR. Jr: It is my understanding that the National Security Council will be hosting an interagency meeting next week to review U.S. policy toward Sudan. Sudan is at a critical crossroads: a bold policy developed early in the Clinton Administration will send a clear message to the government of Sudan that the United States is serious about ending the conflict and starvation in Sudan. I want to share with you a letter I recently sent to the President and ask that this interagency group consider my recommendations. Having just returned from my third trip to southern Sudan. I am aware of the myriad of problems facing the Administration as it contemplates a new U.S. position on the civil war and famine. I also encourage you to pay close attention to Congressional action on this issue. To date. there has peen wide bipartisan support in Congress for a stronger U.S. policy toward Sudan. If Congress and the White House can walk in step on Sudan policy. tens of thousands of lives may be saved. Enclosed are several photos from my trip and a copy of my testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa. I appreciate your consideration of my recommendations. Sincerely.
Date: 1993-06-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank my distinguished colleague for his kindness. his generosity. and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this measure. For American agriculture. trade Is of utmost importance. We are the only nation in the world that basically has this efficiency for our use. the bestfed people in the world. in the history of the world. for the least amount of .disposable income per family of the major industrialized countries in the world. Yet. we have 18 billion dollars worth of trade. The leaders of the world come through this capital. and they come and speak with me as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture about agriculture. about food. about not only necessarily of feeding the hungry. of trade with some degree of credit like we have with the former Soviet Union and some of the Easternbloc countries. but the fact is that pure. simple trade requires that we have a level playing field. and a level playing field hopefully will be the Uruguay round. This is a tool which we use to see that our trading partners and the world knows that we are serious and that we will not change every agreement. that we will not add to any agreement. that we will be responsible. and this is the way to do so.
Date: 1993-06-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I. rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Chairman. Included In the fiscal year 1994 energy and water appropriations package are two projects of interest tome and for which I support funding. They are as follows: Corpus Christi ship channel. Texas. is a navigation project which is budgeted for operation and maintenance at $10.315.000. Continued funding of this project Is essential due to the Impact on the local economy. The project provides for widening and. deepening the existing channels40.5 milesand basins from the Gulf of Mexico to deepwater ports at Harbor Island. Ingleside. and Corpus Chist. and a branch channel to the port of La Ouinta to provide a project depth of 45 feet It also indudes -the construction of mooring areas and dolphins at Port Ingleside. one mooring area and six dolphins constructed initially with seven others deferred to be constructed when required. Lower Rio Grande Basin. south main channel. Texas. is a flood control project which Is budgeted at $1.500.000 for preconstruction engineering and design. It provides the major outlet component of an overall flood protection plan for Wiliacy and Hidalgo Counties. The authorized plan calls for construction of a major channel extending from near McAJlen to the Laguna Madre. and related fish and wildlife mitigation measures. The authorized plan would provide 2year protection to rural areas whichdrain Into the south main channel. 100year flood protection to the cities of Ednburg. McAllen. and Lyford. and 50year flood protection for the cities of La Villa and Edcouch. Mr. Chairman. many of these areas are now under water from recent heavy rains. We still have muchmore to do.. but this is a good step forward. I thank my colleagues.
Date: 1993-06-24
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today In support of the super collider and I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of its continued funding. The super collider not only represents the future of our scientific knowledge. it represents the future of our economy by providing highskilled jobs for our work force There are those who point to the super collider as an easy budgetcutting target. but the super collider represented only .6 percent of all Federal research and development dollars in 1992 and continues to be only a small percentage of Federal research funding. This project means 15.000 jobs all over the country and should not be abandoned due to a temporary downturn in our economy. I ask my fellow Members to imagine where we would be If we had abandoned all of our major scientific ventures in the past because they appeared to be too expensive at the time. Think for a moment about all that has already been built and Imagine It sitting useless. not realizing any of Its potential while our understanding of the nature of matter and the origins of our universe stands still. Members. I urge you to vote In favor of this project because it will ensure that we continue to move forward In our scientific endeavors.
Date: 1993-06-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the State Department is not in the water treatment business. The State Department does not construct dams. The State Department does not work on the U.S. side of the river. They only reach the agreement. They only negotiate. The individual agencies and departments are the ones that do the work. In this case. the authorization clearly says that the State Department. in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. "shall implement." And that is what our statement is. that the State Department does not in and of itself work in that area. The International Boundary and Water Commission works in joint projects with Mexico. The individual agency. in this case. the Environmental Protection Agency. is the operative section of this legislation. This legislation was not intended to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency. We could not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency under international law and under the laws of this country. We have to authorize the State Department. But the State Department. in conjunction with the operating agency. would do the construction. And that is the authorization and that is the law. I think that is what should be done this evening.
Date: 1993-06-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Again. Mr. Chairman. let me repeat my respect and admiration to the distinguished chairman in what he tried to do. We have no quarrel with that. We commend him for that. We hope that all of the subcommittee would so act. Mr. Chairman. however. I just wanted to. in the discussion on the point of order. say that we may have missed the point that I think should be on the record. that this amendment was adopted by the full Committee on Appropriations. by the full Committee on Appropriations. not accepting the recommendation of the distinguished chairman and his opposition to the amendment. The point of order was interjected. to my knowledge. not at the request of the full Committee on Appropriations but rather by the distinguished chairman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman. I think that should be made clear to all the Members. that it was approved by the full Committee on Appropriations. that we did not clear the gray area. and that is unfortunate. because we thought and we still think that we were right. However. so was the ruling. and we will abide by it.
Date: 1993-06-28
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment. Mr. Chairman. I rise this evening In support of the future of our manned space exploration program. The space station Is simply not the porkbarrell program it is being made out to be and deserves your support. I ask any of you who have ever visited an elementary school In your district to admit that the mention of space exploration and the space station has left each child excited. Every school child in this country knows that the space station means the hope of science and the future of our understanding of our own world and the universe we livein.4 Since every school kid knows these facts. here Is what you should know about the space station. The future of our work force depends on the high technologyhigh skilled jobs that the space station and the aerospace industry provide. Between 70.000 and 100.000 jobs will be affected by your vote tonight. The space station experiments could lead to cures for diabetes. cancer and major medical breakthroughs not even yet dreamed of on the confines of our small planet The total cost of this years appropriation Is only the slightest fraction of our $1.5 trillion budget. For those who think they are making great strides to cut spending. I ask them to take a look at the overall budget to realize that the space station is no cash cow when compared to $1.5 trillion in total spending this year. Short term economic realities have never served as the long term judgment of the value of great ambition. By voting in favor of the space station tonight you can reaffirm our commitment to science and leaming. I ask that you base your decision on stateoftheart science rather than stateofthemoment politics.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: LE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this relates to the subject matter discussed in the point of order. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations. the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation would be prohibited from offering crop insurance for purchase in counties with histories of excessive losses. Unfortunately. the bill would penalize some good farmers based on the excessive insurance claims of some of their less fortunate neighbors. My amendment allows the Crop Insurance Corporation to continue to offer insurance policies in counties with excessive loss ratios if the corporation has established a program whereby individual farmers pay premiums for coverage more in line with their individual histories. I believe this approach Is more equitable to the individual producers. and this agreement has been worked out in cooperation with Members of the minority. with members of the subcommittee and the gracious cooperation of the Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this is a program that needed attention. This is a program we needed to revisit. We have done that. I would have hoped that we could have had a more comprehensive approach to it. but under the circumstances this. hopefully. takes care. in the meantime. of the situation we find ourselves in. The authorizing committee will continue oversight and will continue addressing this very serious matter because it is life or death for many of the producers who make us the beat fed Nation in the world for the least amount of disposable income. And they certainly need this tool to manage their resources in order that we might continue to do that for the American people. I would hope that my colleagues would support the amendment.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. that is not accurate. I would inform my colleague. What this does it brings it back to the individual farm. rather than for the county.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

But one that if they already have the Insurance. they are grandfathered. Second. that is the reason for the amendment. that the history will be on the individual farm. not In the county. because the gentleman has. as I am sure I have. counties where half the county Is always in drought or flood and the other half not. so the history would be on the Individual farmer.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me assure the gentleman that we have addressed that issue In the program crops. I do not know that it has been a major issue in crop insurance. but we will have very. very active vigilance over this program. We will join together with the gentleman to see that no program with this or any other program can be utilized by someone beyond the legislative intent and for the reason for which the legislation is in place.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this is another one of the amendments where we had to work out. hopefully. a viable alternative to that which was in the Appropriations Subcommittees legislation. This amendment. which has been developed in consultation with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Illinois . simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds necessary to fund the Rural Development Administration from funds appropriated to the Farmers Home Administation. This will provide funding for the agency for fiscal year 1994. and I believe that it is acceptable to the subcommittee leadership.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. ChArman. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time and just wanted to mention that when I showed my chart earlier. Agriculture has turned back $57 billion in the past 12 years. It is not like we have not been responsible. It is not like we have not done our jobs. Keep In mind. $57 billion has been turned back to the Federal Government by Agriculture in the past 12 years. I would say this is a pretty good job ii trying to reduce the burden of the deficit in this country.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am amazed at how enthusiastically most of my friends on that side have embraced President Clinton and his recommendations. Would that they would do so throughout the rest of the year. Finally. someone once said. "The finest things in life are a good wife. a bathroom inside the house. and electricity." Vote against this amendment. because this will nullify that great desire of an American out in the rural countryside.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman. and my colleagues. the legislation has a definition for socially disadvantaged. It states: As used in this section. the term "socially disadvantaged group" means a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities. As I explained to the gentleman last year. these are groups that were denied equality and justice because of their color or their ethnic background. and henceforth were not allowed to get all of the advantages that others had in regards to bank loans or in regards to buying plots of land or in regards to even buying farms in some areas of the country. Those are the ones that we are talking about.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Because this group got put into this situation prior to the civil rights act. and the civil rights act. in fact. does not address that. If the gentleman feels that everyone who has been deprived of justice. because of the legislation that we passed that everything has been corrected. it has not. and this is an additional provision of law dealing solely with those involved in agriculture. Unfortunately. even though to this day. if the gentlemanwould read what has happened in employment at one of the foremost hamburger chains. the gentleman will. know that discrimination Is still here. and it i& still happening. Let me add in response to the fire question that the gentleman pose about promoting breast feeding. I wi. leave that to the members of the out committee. but I would say that it J the way God intended it to be.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Obviously we hay a difference of opinion on this issui But the gentleman insists that if ther is a law. everything is corrected. There is a law against murder. Ther is a law against stealing. There is a la. against robbing banks. And it has nc stopped people from committing thee crimes.
Date: 1993-06-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. as Silvio Conte would say. "How sweet it is. You are a honey of a friend. Buzz off."
Date: 1993-06-30
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. last week I was home in my district and talking with constituents. and we happened to have a fish fry for one of our local elected officials. And a fellow brought this bumper sticker that says. "Dont blame Bill Clinton for 12 years of voodoo economics." That was so important because if someone In Houston. TX. is willing to spend their own money to get a bumper sticker like this printed up. they have recognized the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans plan submitted in the Senate. The Democratic plan actually cuts the budget and more. because we make specific cuts Instead of the Dole plan saying that we are going to cut them out there somewhere. Seventyfive percent of the new taxes are paid by the wealthy. those people making over $100.000. In the Houston area. our average income is $22.000 per year. so this would affect a small number of Houstonians. The House plan continued the �25.000 deduction for equipment purchases for small business. whereas the Senate plan actually did not. But hopefully we will get that back in the conference committee. The Republican plan in the Senate falls $100 billion short of the Democratic plan in deficit reduction. It uses smoke and mirrors. spending cuts without stating where they are. and is continuing with voodoo economics. @Printed on recycled paper containing 100% post consumer waste
Date: 1993-07-01
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise In opposition to this amendment. It is worthy on its merits. but it is an addon with offsets.
Date: 1993-07-01
Speaker: CAROL M. BROWNER (democrat)
Chamber: S

Administrator. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington. DC. DEAR Ms. BROWNER: On March 26. 1993. the EPA approved a specific exemption to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture for the use of iprodione on apples to control Alternaria mall. On May 7. 1993. the EPA revoked this exemption because of a policy change between EPA and FDA adopted after the Les vs. Reilly decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Ninth Circuit. This policy change was included in the revocation letter from Doug Campt. Director. OPP. Enclosed is an amendment to the original exemption petition. Additional data are now available that show iprodione does not concentrate in juice. Only the variety Red Delicious is affected by this disease. This variety of apple is either sold fresh ofJ processed into juice. No applesauce is produced from this variety. The pomace is usually used as animal feed and is normally fed wet to livestock. according to local sources. Based on new data supplied by RhonePoulenc dated June 17. 1993. it would appear that the residues of iprodione do not concentrate in processing through and including wet pomace (Exhibit I). We have enclosed correspondence from several apple processors and pomace users indicating that the pomace is not dried. but is fed wet at a moisture content of 601/-80% (Exhibit 11). Additionally. a statement is enclosed from the Apple Processors Association which states essentially that its members do not dry pomace (Exhibit III). The revised enforcement program statement is enclosed (Exhibit IV). The revised use season is June 28August 15. 1993. This product is extremely important to a total IPM approach to control Alternaria mali. There are no other fungicides available to growers for control of this disease. When the economic threshold is reached. damage can be severe and extensive. and may lead to eventual death of infected trees. as well as cause bankruptcy of our growers. We urgently request that you review the additional data and consider granting the exemption. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact Mr. John L. Smith. Pesticide Administrator. at 919/733Cordially.
Date: 1993-07-13
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the National Service Trust Act of 1993. As a cosponsor to this bill. I am working to ensure that it is passed and becomes a permanent part of our education and job training environment and also provide a service to fellow Americans. This bill moves us in the right direction by providing options for our graduates and opportunities for them to serve the community and repay their financial obligations. This bill picks up Where our economy leaves off. Since we have shortages in important areas such as teaching and health care. this bill opens the doors to these careers to students who might otherwise be unable to afford them. No longer will students face the burden of large student loan payments and the threat of default if they cannot find a job. These students will pay their debt and grow in the process to gain work experience and return something to their community. This is a triple win. In the district I represent in Houston. there is an incredible need for Increased education opportunities. health care services. and more police protection. By implementing this plan we can meet these needs at the same time we provide education and job skills to young people. Again I would like to state my support of this bill and my appreciation to the President. the Chair. and members of the Education and Labor Committee for their hard work on this important piece of legislation.