macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1990-07-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. next week we will take up the Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990. which most Members know as the 1990 farm bill. There is a lot of misinformation about this bill. Some say farm programs raise prices to consumers. Yes. farm programs do put a floor on farm commodity prices. But they also provide us a way of keeping food prices from going too high. Farm programs even out the peaks and valleys that occur in agricultural prices. All of us represent consumers. So I thought my colleagues should be aware of a study being released today by the University of Missouris Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. This study has found that the stabilizing influence of farm programs has saved consumers $40 billion by preventing large food price increases after 1988 drought. Before the 1988 droughtone of the worst in historywe had a large carryover corn reserve of 4.3 billion bushels. One year laterafter that drought. our corn supplies were down to 1.9 billion bushels. What this University of Missouri study says is that without this reserve. corn prices could have gone up 41 percent. causing longlasting and costly consequences to the whole food productionsystem. Corn is used in producing beef. pork. and poultry. Skyhigh corn prices would have forced farmers to sell off their livestock. glutting the market. and. yes. initially we would have had lower meat prices. But what these smaller livestock herds mean is that meat prices would have been much higher for years. It takes time to rebuild herds. The University of Missouri study says consumer food costs would have gone up $15 billion by the third year after the drought without the stabilizing influence of farm programs. Without Government stocks to cushion the effects of the drought. annual increase in food costs would have averaged $5 billion between 198996. This scenario would have devastated lowincome families the most. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the real goals of our farm programs when we debate the farm bill. Its not welfare for farmers. Farm programs make affordable food prices possible for all Americans. We all benefit from broad participation in the farm programs. Before you point the finger at the farm programs remember it saved you. the consumer. $40 billion.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE IA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. today we will begin the process of discussing what we call the farm bill. farm legislation. I would ask all of my colleagues to work with us In order that we might evolve in the end and craft legislation worthy to be remembered and that we do the responsible thing in this House. Unfortunately and regretfully. for no other reason perhaps than media coverage. we have painted ourselves into a corner dealing solely with one item. What you will be talking about. what we will be discussing when we discuss the farm bill is the food chain. food supply. who eats what. when they eat It. how they eat it. what amount of disposable income is available. Mr. Speaker. we are the best fed people in the world. in the history of the world. for the least amount of disposable income per family. As a matter of fact. not that we do no have hunger in America. but that never has been the fault of the farmer. So. pointing the finger at this farmer or that farmer or how you are going to balance .the budget is not the most important factor. The most important factor is: Are we as a nation able to provide for all the people of this great country of ours at a reasonable price. a goodquality food? That is what we will be discussing. not poetry or rhyme or who got what. but rather is the food available and are we the best fed in the world? That will be the discussion and hopefully it will evolve into a triumph for this House. that consensus will prevail and. with civility and some degree of humor. we may arrive at a reasonable and satisfactory solution to all Members and to all the people of the United States of America.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE IA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. and the gentleman is correct. This Is a consumer piece of legislation. Members may disagree. but this study shows that the consumer has benefited $40 billion for having those stocks in place. We have just heard that supply and demand does not work. We have had a freeze in Florida. We had a freeze in Texas. Since we do not have an ample supply of orange Juice for the women. infants. and childen. for the school lunch programs. the Committee on Appropriations has had to commit about $150 million just for that simple reason. In the commodities that we deal with. they are there. they are available. and had It not been for those commodities. and I am speaking to those that may be bringing amendments. pointing the finger at Members. we would not have had the availability of the food at those reasonable prices. Mr. Chairman. let me express my appreciation to all the members of the committee who worked so diligently on this bill We have differences of opinion. That happens in any family. To the chairman of the other committees. the Committee on Foreign Affairs. the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. the Committee on Education and Labor. the Committee on Ways and Means. they and their staff have been most amenable to cooperate. We have worked together. Basically we have been able to resolve almost all the issues that we had with other committees. The staff of our committee. working with the other committees. have been here to 4 oclock in the morning. 4:30 in the morning. all but for one purpose in mind. and that is that we bring into this floor legislation that. hopefully. might keep Americans as the bestfed people in the world.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. at this point I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. it is my understanding that the Committee on Foreign Affairs would like to utilize some of their time at this point.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. HucKKiy). the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Cotton. Rice and Sugar.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to our colleague. the gentleman from Kansas . one of the distinguished subcommittee chairmen on our committee.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield 3 minutes to our colleague. the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. VoLxMER1. one of our distinguished subcommittee chairmen.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I am informed that the Committee on Education and Labor has allotted to them 30 minutes. I do not know of their participation with the exception of the mutual committee member. the gentleman from Indiana . who is present. Either we could allow him time on our time or. if he would. take time from that allocated to the Committee on Education and Labor.
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I If our colleagues from the nonfarm yield I minute to our distinguished States are successful in wrecking the colleague from Georgia . 1990 farm program. they will have
Date: 1990-07-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. we have come to the end of the initial phase of considering the 1990 farm bill. Tomorrow we will go on to considering amendments and finally. hopefully. we will have an end result. I think all who have participated throughout the day. I repeat again my thanks to the chairmen of the other committees. the ranking Members. the ranking member on our committees. all of our Members. the staff and everyone who has worked with us to get us to this point. Finally. Mr. Chairman. let me conclude by saying that we have brought forth a vehicle which we respectfully suggest is worthy of your highest consideration. We have labored diligently and honestly trying to utilize all the resources at our disposal to deal with the realities of our times. We feel right Is on our side and that justice and equity and the people of this great country of ours will be served well if you support our efforts. To this end. we will dedicate ourselves in the days to come. Mr. Speaker. I move that the Committee do now rise.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reserving the right to object. Mr. Chairman. just to clarify this. it has just come to my attention that we would have to divide the halfhour. 15 minutes to the minority and 15 minutes to the majority.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. there seems to be an erroneous perception as to this cost. I have information which shows that the ones who made this study that shows $2.3 or $3 billion used the dump price of sugar. did not take into consideration that cuts have come to the consumer and. therefore. this is a figure that is faulty because of the criteria used to arrive at it. I would hope that the gentleman would accept that and continue with his proposal in a way which would be factual and not using a figure that cannot be verified.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have information here that if this amendment is adopted. CBI countries will lose $85 million right away. That is what they would lose.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DR LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. you have heard it all. The final fact is. can the manufacturersThere is not one cocoa bean produced in the United States of America. All the chocolate comes from abroad. and they do not care how much they charge for It. Now. for every farmer you lose. for every pound of sugar you use. it will come from abroad. So the bottom line is. it is Jobs in the United States of America. farmers in the United States of America. Vote no on the Downey amendment. It is jobs USA Jobs USA. Jobs USA. You cannot cut It anymore. You cannot hide it anymore. It is jobs. jobs. jobs in the USA. Vote no on the amendment.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. Very briefly. listening to my distinguished colleagues and friends. the gentlemen from Florida and Minnesota. I concur partially with their assessment of the situation. and we know that as far as free trade and international trade. our two distinguished friends and colleagues are purists in this effort. I applaud them for that. We have to deal with the realities of internal situation and domestic situation. I have no disagreement. I do cringe a little bit when one of our colleagues says that we are GATT illegal. and that is really a short phrase used because there is no legal or illegal. but it is a community of nations. as all Members know. that establish some rules. and Members. hopefully. will apply. We have. by and large. been faithful to the GATT. and will continue to be. There is some degree of insistence on my part. though. for example. that who brought the complaint. and we are heard from law school days that to come into a court of equity a person must come with clean hands. The charge was brought by our friends and neighbors. and very good trading partners. from Australia. who had kept sugar from coming into their country for abut 70 years. contrary to GATT. Then they changed It. but put in a tariff which is prohibitive. so that sugar will come Into Australia. But now they are GATT legal. I have discussed this with several prime ministers of Australia. I have discussed it with their Minister of Primary Industry. Agriculture. their Minister of Commerce. and they are not that agitated. They are waiting to see. They are leading an effort to arrive to some degree of consensus at GATT. I agree with my colleagues. and I applaud and respect them for their purity in wanting to establish a world legal order in trade. and all Members look towards that day so that we would not have to be dealing with legislation like we will be dealing with here. However. at this point in time. the reality of the situation is that basically the administration needs this tool to endorse the law as we now have it. and do not disrupt when the sugar comes in. how it comes in. and therefore I would hope that with due respect to my colleagues. committing ourselves to work toward the end which they so eloquently espouse that we support the committee and allow Members to give the administration this tool to continue administering the legislation as they have done in the past.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if I might. at this point let me take just a moment to commend the members of the subcommittee. the chairman and the ranking member. for the excellent manner in which they have handled the rice commodity in the bill. This is a very Important commodity for us. We have problems with some of our trading partners. Actually what we need is to get more people to eat rice. I hope everyone goes out. and eats more rice. It is good for you. good for your heart. good for your cholesterol. good for everything that ails you. But we have to intercede In behalf of our producers. and our colleagues have done an excellent job in this respect. My amendment. Mr. Chairman. is the Sarpalius. which allows discretion to the Secretary. and it embraces the Thomas amendment which deals with the water owned by the Indians in Wyoming and the general technical amendments. I might add to my colleagues that this amendment will have to be offered to all the titles. That Is the extent of the amendment. and I would ask for a vote on it at this time.
Date: 1990-07-24
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. in an attempt to conclude the debate on this issue. first let me say that this is not the type of situation the committee chairman relishes. due to the fact that within the committee there is a difference of opinion. whether we call it ideological. philosophical. or whatever else we wish to call it. I might stipulate the fact. though. that not this amendment but a similar one was offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. VoixMER] in the committee. It was defeated by a vote of 24 to 14. That Is how the committee voted. We now find ourselves in a situation that is very serious and sad. because my dear friend and colleague. the gentleman from Minnesota. described the farm for us. and I have been to that farm in Minnesota. I have been to the same farm in east Texas. I have. been to the same farm in south Texas. I have been to the same farm In Wisconsin. I have been to the same farm in Arizona. and I have been to the same farm in California. You just change the names. The gentleman articulated. I think. In an exemplary manner what we are speaking about. The problem we find ourselves in now is that the gentleman from Wisconsin disagrees with another gentleman from Wisconsin on the philosophical or on the practical aspect about the implication of administering this amendment. I would hope that this could be resolved down the line. but at this point I have no other alternative but to ask my colleagues to support the committee and vote no on the Volkmer amendment. The committee defeated that amendment or a similar version by a vote of 24 to 14. The argument has not been convincing to the nth degree that we would better the life of that little farmer in Minnesota or that little farmer in Wisconsin or east Texas. If we mention the facts about what is happening in Europe today. we find that dairy farmers in Holland are selling their land and their cattle and they are moving to Indiana. to east Texas. and to many other parts of the United States because they could no longer work under the system that has been spoken of in some degree as being favorable to the European Community. So that has not worked. I have been to that same farm outside Munich. Germany. where the fellow told me: "The only thing that is going to save me is when they build that airport through here and I sell my land to. the government." We do not want that to happen to these little dairy farmers. We talk about this ogre. the corporation. I say to my colleagues that a corporation has to make a profit every quarter or else they fire the CEO. You do not make a profit every quarter farming. Why do they hang on? Because they love the land and because they want to keep doing what they have been doing. So. Mr. Chairman. In view of everything I have before me. I would ask my colleagues to support the committee. and hopefully we can continue to provide that better life for that little farmer down the line.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield. I would state that the gentleman is correct that H.R. 3950 does not in any way amend or affect the corps and EPAs responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. All of the bills wetlands provisions relate solely to programs and activities of the Secretary of Agriculture and not those of the corps or EPA.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield further. I would state to the gentleman that that is correct. For example. provisions in H.R. 3950 addressing wetlands delineations and procedures and mitigation requirements are not intended to affect duties or requirements of EPA and the corps in their review or implementation of the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and the 1990 Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement. Provisions on swampbuster. the conservation reserve program and the new wetlands easement program are separate from and not in lieu of other agency activities.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. The gentleman is correct that nothing in H.R. 3950 is meant to modify or impair Federal. State. or local water pollution control activities under the Clean Water Act. For example. sections 319. 320 and 208 of the Clean Water Act remain unchanged. However. the Secretary of Agriculture. in carrying out responsibilities in this bill. is encouraged to continue to coordinate with EPA in solving point source and nonpoint source water quality problems.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The committees intent is to improve water quality through activities of TVAs National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center and the Soil Conservation Service. The Committee on Agriculture does not intend to affect the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation Committee in any way.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I would like to state to the Members that as we have done through the whole process of the farm legislation. we tried to incorporate and accommodate concerns of Members and groups. and we are in the process now of having further discussions to see if accommodation cannot be reached with parties relating to the next two titles. title V and title VI. which would be the wool and mohair title and the honey title. I appreciate the effort being done by all of the Members from the diverging viewpoints to see if we can arrive at some agreement within the norms of protecting the interests of the House. the interests of the committee. and the interests of individual Members. I would hope that we can arrive at some degree of compromise to present to the Members for their final approval or disapproval thereof. Mr. Chairman. at this time in order to further facilitate those discussions. I ask unanimous consent that title VII be printed in the RECORD and open to amendment at any point. and that it be in order to return to titles V and VI after the disposition of this title.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DR LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

(during the read. ing). Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the en bloc amendments be considered as read and printed in the RwRo.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chafrman. this is an en bloc amendment. This amendment was addressed to title XIX. but should technically fit under this title. All we are doing now is offering it here. rather than title XIX.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. with regard to the unanimous consent that the House so graciously extended to us to delay consideration on titles V and VI. the Members negotiating and discussing the matter are still in the process of hopefully arriving at some satisfactory conclusion. Therefore. I would continue my unanimous consent request that titles V and VI be delayed. and that we continue with the next title.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I respectfully renew and continue my unanimousconsent request that titles V and VI be deferred until further consideration of the succeeding titles.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the en bloc amendments be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. these en bloc amendments have the Sarpalius amendment and the Thomas amendment on the Indian waters and an agreed amendment on the minimum loan rate.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I renew my unanimous consent request that titles V and VI be deferred and that we may continue with the next title.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this is the same amendment that we just did to the preceding title. and we are doing It to this title.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I renew my unanimousconsent request that titles V and VI be deferred and that we continue on with the succeedIng titles.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I am going to address this issue more at length at another point. but let me Just say that I have Just been told that under section 6103 of Internal Revenue. the Internal Revenue cannot release. not even to the Secretary. unless we change it. But I wanted to ask the gentleman. was that in National Affairs magazine. there has been a lot of rhetoric from the gentleman about all this issue. In this July 16 issue. it says "Armey likes to apply what he calls unassignable demagogic coefficient to issue demagoguery beats data every time." Did the gentleman say that?
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will continue to yield. that is not the issue at all. The issue is that the gentleman and others have fought this amendment and this issue out in the news media. and there have been a lot of editorials. I Just wanted to ask the gentleman if he brought in this issue of "demagoguery beats data every time." I probably agree with him. and will leave it at that.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is the reason for the program. because there is no program for orange juice. and that is a capitalistic system. and that is what brought the price up. So we try and provide commodities for the elderly. Meals on Wheels. for school lunches. and all of that from the program with the system that we have for distribution. I wanted to thank the gentleman for bringing us this viewpoint. but it is not a question of big and small. but city versus rural. It is a question of doing the right thing for the reasons that the gentleman wants the right thing to be done.
Date: 1990-07-25
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the committee has brought us what I think is fair and equitable legislation. and I oppose both the amendments. I ask the Members to vote no on the Glickman amendment.