macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding and yes. I will be very happy to accept the recommendation of my distinguished colleague from Illinois.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. - I would say to the Members that the two provisions. the net worth certificate and the emergency acquisition powers. they are to a tee. that is are dotted the same way. all the punctuation is similar. no changes whatsoever. And I do indeed agree with our colleague from Connecticut that there must be a review of the efficacy of the Net Worth Certificate Program. and for that reason we are granting an extension to April of next year rather than a blanket extension. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LE GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the author of the amendment as it appears in the bill. the gentleman from Iowa .
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. in order to facilitate the debate for the rest of the day. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill after this title be printed in the RECORD. and open to amendment at any point.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. further to facilitate and expedite the debate today. I ask unanimous consent that all debate on title VIII on peanuts. and all amendments thereto on that title. be limited to 1 hour. the time to be divided equally between the proponents and the opponents.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that debate on title XV and all amendments thereto. which is the food stamps section. be limited to 1 hour. to be divided equally between the proponents and -the opponents. and further. that the debate on the Petri amendment to title XXI be limited to 1 hour. the time to be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me state that we have heard a lot of figures. I want to tell you I heard a quotation once that said. "Facts are the enemy of truth." So forget all the facts and listen to the truth. I wish that my colleagues and the author of this amendment and those who support it. I wish you could come with me to Floresville in Wilson County. TX. when the peanut growers come and meet with me. I wish you could see how they dress. I wish you could see in their faces the pleading for all of agriculture. for rural America. so I ask my colleagues. we are still the best fed people in the world for the lowest amount of disposable income. Even in peanuts the lowest part of the price goes to the farmer. If you want to reduce peanut butter or candy prices. talk to your big manufacturers. that is where the highest percentage of the consumer cost is. Mr. Chairman. we just lost an amendment because of philosophical differences. I plead with my colleagues. we cannot send the wrong message out there to the farmers that are dying on the farmsand make no mistake. the peanut growers are in the same position as corn and wheat farmers. The problem is not only with the Peanut Program. or with figuring a way to phase it out. As a matter of fact. in California. almonds are in trouble. walnuts are in trouble. pistachios are in trouble. all the nuts in California are in trouble.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. and I do so with a great deal of respect and admiration for our other Member from Texas. Mr. Chairman. we just voted on sustaining the committee on a very carefully drafted provision in the peanut area. There is provision there for movement. there is provision there for growth. There is provision there for sharing. for expansion. This amendment would throw this all out of kilter. only for the State of Texas. I hate to take issue with my colleague from Texas. You might say this is a family affair in Texas. but it is unfair to the other States. What we have in the legislation is room for growth for all of the States. What we have in the legislation for expansion is for all of the States. and we have in our committee report also considered the need of this area of Texas. We are working. but it is a very delicate situation. This amendment would only unravel everything that we have done. This amendment would only be applicable in Texas. and I have to be chairman for all of the Nation. Mr. Chairman. We have to be members of the committee for all of the Nation. and we have to provide national legislation. This amendment is not in that tone and would not have that effect. On the contrary. it might have a tendency to disrupt in Texas where the manufacturers or where the shellers are. and it would be a disruption that eventually would be disastrous to both sides of the Issue and where peanuts are grown in Texas. I would hope that my distinguished colleague would continue working with us. as he has. continue working as diligently as he has. I assure you that he makes a valuable contribution to our committee. He is a valuable member of our committee. and it Is with great pain personally that I.have to oppose his amendment. But we are dealing with national legislation. We cannot single out. we cannot carve out. We are trying very diligently to meet his need and we will continue to do so. I assure you. So for the best interests of all concerned. I would hope that the committee. that our colleagues. would sustain the committee and vote no on the amendment so that we might continue working together to meet his needs. but doing it in an orderly fashion as we are already doing.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would advise the meinbership and my distinguished colleague that we have examined both amendments. as offered en bloc. and we have no objection tothe amendments.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if I may be heard on my point of order. I would not object to the gentleman having made his. plea for the amendment. But the amendment as printed in the RECORD. Mr. Chairman. does not designate a proper page or title or section of the bill. and for that reason I would submit that it is- out of order.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reserving the right to object. Mr. Chairman. I do so only to inform the gentleman that we are still studying his amendinents. and there is a possibility that we might not be fully in accord with one of them. I wonder If the gentleman would continue with one of the amendments and make his request later.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. H18194 I would advise the gentleman that these two amendments. his. titles II and IV. we would have no objection to on this side..
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate the interest of the gentleman in facilitating the eventual finishing of this legislation. I think the issue has been clearly defined and enunciated. With the exception of having some Members that may not have been heard. I would be agreeable to any reasonable time limit. and I think we can expedite the process. Also. I would be very happy to agree to the gentlemans suggestion to accommodate the gentleman from North Carolina. I would think that 1 hour probably would allow Members to voice their wishes on this matter.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask the gentleman to yield for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry as to how the time will be apportioned.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman. I repeat as I have throughout the process of this legislation. this is a very difficult situation for me. I served on the Merchant Marine Committee. when I became chairman I had to leave that committee. The situation is one. though. that is very simple but it brings out emotion in most of the Members. We in the Agriculture Committee are only trying to bring back the basic law in operation up 20 this spring and the Merchant Marine Committee is trying to put into permanent law the decision of one district court. The sad situation is the same as the farmer. the merchant marine. the U.S. fleet is suffering. In this situation. no one wins because the Secretary is not spending the funds appropriated. He still has some $57 million. What we are trying to do with the RobertEnglish substitute is to bring back the status quo. and keep working so that the merchant fleet can have 50 percent so that we do not provide undue harm or damage to our farmers. If we do not do this. no one wins. You will have no ports. you will have no merchant fleet. We will have no farmers selling abroad. I submit to you that the court decision brings in private. commercial transactions. I submit to you that Blended Credit Program was not a way to get around the cargo preference law. But I will go personally with the Merchant Marine to try and get funds. I will do anything that can be done. But we cannot prejudice this farm bill. We cannot send a signal out that we are going to sacrifice either the farmer or the merchant fleet or the ports of America. The best thing that we can do is keep the status quo until we decide within the family what we are going to do. The best course to take under that is to support the English amendment because it does no damage to the merchant marine or the farmer. Again. I repeat. they are not now shipping. The Secretary is not spending the money. You are keeping the farmer from having some sales. While we bring back the farmer. then we can go and try and correct this situation. because one district court decision can be annulled by another district court. We cannot put it into permanent law at this time. We need to have hearings. and they need to be in the Merchant Marine Committee also. I urge the Members to stay with the Agriculture Committee. Later we can work out the family difference.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

As a result of a lawsuit brought by the maritime industry. not by agriculturewe did not start thislast February. a Federal court ruled that cargo preference applies to the Agricultures Blended Credit Program. under which the USDA offers very attractive terms to promote the sale of.farm products. Now for over 30 years. cargo preference has applied to onehalf of all cargo shipped under Public Law 480 and section 416 authority. I appreciate the merits of the application of cargo preference to the food aid programs. That is a totally different argument. I am not making that point. In addition. there are some in the Congress who wanted to totally repeal cargo preference. Now we have backed off. That is not what the EnglishRoberts argument and amendment is all about. What the EnglishRoberts amendment is all about is simply half of nothing is still nothing. As a result of the courts ruling applying cargo preference to the Blended Credit Program. the Secretary did suspend the operation of the program. We have heard a lot of arguments as to why he did that. but it was suspended. The courts ruling would have added $40 million to $50 million in additional cost. Since the ruling. no shipments have been made under that program. In short. while the maritime folks won a battle in the courts. they have not won the battle in the fight to round up the money to pay for the additional cost of applying your cargo preference to commercial export programs. The great court victory has not resulted in one additional maritime sailor going to work. It has not resulted in any additional U.S.-carried cargoes. However. what has resilted from the ruling is that U.S. farm exports are down. As a result. the American farmer has lost over 3 million metric tons or $500 million worth of grain exports. When those exports are down. the surplus is up. the price is down. and that is how the farmer gets hurt. During the Agriculture Committees consideration of the farm bill. we included language reaffirming our commitment to a strong merchant marine. However. we also clarified the intent of Congress that cargo preference should. as it has in the past. apply to 50 percent of the shipments under Public Law 480 and section 416 and not commercial export promotion programs. I know as a result what will happen if you do that in that district court. then it will be the GSM102 Program. then it will be the Bicep Program. then it will be virtually every export program we have in the farm bill. mandated export subsidies to get our grain moving. Quite simply. a vote for the EnglishRoberts compromise is a vote to allow our farmers . to export their grain again. and is at the same time a vote for the maritime industry. because it does not repeal existing legislated cargo preference requirements. I urge my colleagues to support .this compromise in the committee bill.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. and I do so to advise the gentleman and our colleagues that the only amendment that the Committee on Agriculture had has been disposed of. Any other amendments related to cargo preference are not amendments sponsored by the Committee on Agriculture.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we are not quite clear as to the amendment. We know what the intent of the gentleman is. but the wording of the amendment is not quite clear. Perhaps it might be an amendment that we could agree on if we understood it more fully. We would accept the gentlemans amendment. continue studying it with no assurance that when we are in conference that it would be kept in conference if we find objection to it in the process.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I think he has made an excellent suggestion that we continue looking at this in the process of the conference committee with the other body. plus there is a provision in the legislation. as I am sure the gentleman knows. for an appeal for anyone under this title of the legislation. So the procedure for appeal through the county committee. et cetera. is there. But to address the concerns of the gentleman. if they should not be covered under the appeal process. I think that we could continue studying and take the gentlemans advice and work with him in cooperation with the authors of the amendment.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. we have under a previous order allocated 1 hour to the title on food stamps and 1 hour to a proposed amendment b Mr. PETRi. Otherwise we have no other limitation. Mr. Chairman. I had anticipated and hoped. as was suggested earlier. and had accepted as reasonable the suggestion by the minority whip that we might finish by 10 oclock this evening. I think we could. We anticipate maybe 3 or 4 other amendments that might entail some debate. If the gentleman would allow me. I. would hope and ask for the cooperation of the Members that we might expedite the process by cooperating with the offerer. whoever offers an amendment. or whoever opposes the amendment. that we avail ourselves of the rules of revise and extend and so on. But I would hope that we could conclude by 10 oclock.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

It had been suggested by the parliamentarian that there may be a technical problem. But let me make an attempt. Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent. excluding the 2 hours already mandated. that the balance of the bill. -since it is now open for amendment at any point. be limited to 1 hour beyond the 2 hours already mandated.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we do not know. because we do not know how many amendments are in the record that might not be offered. But we anticipate just a very few.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yeild. the gentleman has an amendment with which we have a problem with jurisdiction. There may be a point of order raised. But should the gentlemans amendment be ruled in order by the parliamentarian. I would have no objection. I do not know if the gentleman would require more than 15 minutes.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman. I wish to advise the gentleman. I am sure that he already knows. that the subcommittee of jurisdiction has initiated hearings. They have already had the first. of a series of hearings. They will have a second series of hearings and will listen to all concerned and will do the necessary research. We have no objection to involving the President. I do not know why we should burden the President with any more work while the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee is willing to do the work. Otherwise. we have no objection.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. I take this time very sincerely to commend the gentleman for his interest in the plight of rural America and in the small farmers. As all of us know. the gentleman hails from Brooklyn. but he has roots from another area of the South. But the interest he has shown and the time which has devoted in this effort we welcome. We hope that we will have more participation in a positive way from the Brooklyns of all the urban areas of the United States. As far as I am concerned. after commending the gentleman. we would be very happy to accept his amendment. Mr. Chairman. I would like for the gentleman to yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to make that approval at this time.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I take this time to advise the Members that unless the pace that we have been taking in the past several amendments and colloquies is accelerated tremendously. we would no t be able to finish this legislation by 10 oclock. We have a mandated 2 hours. 1 on the socalled Petri amendment. and 1 on food stamps. and we have various and sundry amendments. If we were to set a limit for 10 oclock. I am sure that we could finish. otherwise. it does not look like we will. and I would be ready to rise at this timeI am not making that motion yetand hopefully conclude on Monday.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I agree with the gentleman. I do not want to be accused of cutting anyone off or limiting debate. I would hope that we could conclude. and I am ready to proceed to conclusion. but there is no sense in prolonging the agony of many Members who have commitments otherwise. if we are not going to finish. Perhaps if we could continue for another few minutes. but If we do not get the necessary cooperation. which we have not up to this point. we will not be able to proceed expeditiously. Mr. Chairman. perhaps if we just attempt to finish the title we are on now and then we will see where we are.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I would defer to the gentlewoman from New Jersey. It was my intention to rise .at this time. but I will defer to her at this point.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gracious gentlewoman. If she does not wish to take her time at this time. the Chair would see that her time is protected when we next continue with the legislation.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Sp ask unanimous consent that a bers may have 5 legislative which to revise and extend t marks on consideration today bill. H.R. 2100.
Date: 1985-10-03
Speaker: JAMES E. ANDREWS (democrat)
Chamber: H

Stated Clerk Office of the General Assembly. Presbyterian Church. (U.S.A.). Atlanta. GA. DEAR MR. ANDREWS: It is with the utmost concern and respect that we. the undersigned Presbyterian Members of Congress. write to you to express our observations concerning various statements and proclamations by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) relative to our nations defense and foreign policy. Because of our moral obligation to enact policies which promote peace with justice. we look to the guidance of the Church for direction and moral sustenance. However. to be direct. when we feel that statements made by the General Assembly are based on misperceptions which have too often become accepted as truths. we feel compelled to address ourselves to those inaccuracies. Over the past several years. the General Assembly and various agencies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have repeatedly witnessed to the aspects of U.S. policy toward Central America. strategic deterrence. human rights. and .U.S.-Soviet relations. These are crucial issues in our time. and they are certainly areas where the Church should address itself. However. we respectfully. but strongly. differ on the conclusions which the General Assembly has reached in many of these areas and with the perceptions on which these conclusions appear to be based. For that reason. we feel compelled to express our dissent in several areas where the Church recently has spoken.
Date: 1985-10-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that because my concern is that I offered her that her time would be protected and that I would see to It that today she would have her time available. If that can be coordinated within the time yielded. then I would appreciate it in order that we might carry out our commitment to her when we last adjourned.
Date: 1985-10-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I respectfully ask my colleagues. once again. to stay with the committee. I want to mention something very briefly about food stamps. that there is still some talk and some insinuation that somehow they are bad. that there is too much fraud and abuse. I want to categorically state to you that if any person receives food stamps that he is not entitled to. only two things could have happened: The person did not tell the truth. or- someone made a mistake. Otherwise. we have got the rules drawn so tight that no one can categorically state that they can abuse the program. Second. we are getting bogged down too much with figures here. but I think I can simplify the numbers: Had it not been for the cuts of 1981 or the change in the legislation in 1981 and 1982. we would be at 100. But we are at 50. So we add on trying to get to about 80. The gentleman from Missouri says that the amendment does not cut. We are not cutting. but we are not at the 100 I spoke of. What the committee bill does is try to get up to the 80 and the amendment keeps us at the 50. COLA and everything. That is the gist of it. The fact is also that we cannot legislate in a vacuum on this type of legislation. We made our cuts. nearly $8 billion. in the committee. The whole bill saves a net of $7.9 billion. but we balance spending and savings. we balance the bill. We add here on the food stamp. but cut in another area. Our bill is balanced. You cannot strikeout solely at the poorest of the poor just because the committee added a little bit. It is true that we added. but we add to bring the program back up to 80. we did not try to go to the whole 100. to restore the program to 100 percent of pre1981 levels. I wish that somehow we would not even need food stamps. This is the greatest country in the world. We should not be talking about feeding hungry people. but they are there. they are out there in my area. in rural America. and in your area. in the inner cities. That is where they are at. We should not say. "No." to them at this time.
Date: 1985-10-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would like to inform my colleague that we will be very happy to keep him informed of the process should this amendment be enacted and be an item in conference.