macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I appreciate that and I am not going to object strenuously to the amendment. As far as I am concerned. it can be accepted or we Mr. WY] can go by voice vote. Member car However. in my books. this further the ground clouds the issue because now we say He can mak there is going to be a disclosure re- quorum is n quirement. However. we do not know The CHA who. when. how. why. And frankly. we can make t now mess up the consumer even more quorum is n and. of course. you still have the words has been re in there that say reason to believe. out. A divi And of course. you have added one after the q factor now. and that is notification. the Commi and invoice costs here are going to be mined by st picked up. You talk about costs to the number as t consumer. this will certainly increase tronically re the costs. The quest For that reason. as I say. I will not of a quorunoppose this amendment being offered. a quorum is I really feel that it further cripples Members the Shumway afnendment. and I yield by electroni back the balance of my time. The call
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if Barton we can get agreement to ask for a Bateman Bates Record vote. I will not object to the Bedell vote on the basis of a quorum not Beilenson being present. In that way we will ex- Bennett Bentley pedite the proceedings. Bereuter Mr. Chairman. I demand a recorded Berman vote. Biaggi A recorded vote was refused. Bilirakis Boggs
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Under the cir- Bogand cumstances. Mr. Chairman. I have no Boner (TN) alternative but to make a point of Bonior (MI) order that a quorum is not present Borskl Bosco and object to the vote and ask for a re- Boucher corded vote. Brooks
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. Cooper Coughlin the gentleman from Rhode Island Courter makes a point of order that a quorum Coyne is not present and objects to the vote Craig Daniel on the ground that a quorum is not Dannemeyer present. Darden
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

MY amendment is identical to language which we offered in subcommittee and then later withdrew. Mr. Chairman. testimony from the Association of Reserve City Bankers and the Federal Reserve supported the amendment 6f the gentleman from Rhode Island. and the chairman himself said: We are putting in a requirement that there has to be a finding on the safety and soundness of the payment system. which I think is a rather important criteria that the Fed would have to address. Continuing. he noted "the potential for an adverse effect on safety and soundness is out there." I think the chairman of the full committee is absolutely correct. and I think we owe it to our constituents to ensure that the Federal Reserve preserves the safety and soundness of our payments mechanism. This point was underscored by an unfortunate event involving a serious operational problem last year. which required the Federal Reserve Board of New York to extend a sizable discount window advance to a large banking institution in New York. Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Preston Martin responded. in a letter to me. that: This occurrence underscores the need for the Federal Reserve to take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure the safety. soundness and integrity of the payments system. in conclusion. Mr. Chairman. I ask: How can any Member oppose an amendment to ensure that the Federal Reserve maintains and preserves the safety and soundness of our payments system? An "aye" vote is a vote for the safety and soundness of our Nations enviable system of clearing checks. and I urge adoption of my clarifying amendment.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. as the gentleman from Ohio knows. at the full committee markup I offered a similar amendment to that being offered at this point by my colleague from Ohio. After 1 hour of debate. it became clear to me that the Federal Reserve Board was not able to make a convincing case. and their representatives were given the opportunity. right there in the markup session. to respond to committee inquiries during the markup. Mr. Chairman. let me repeat: The gentleman from Ohio correctly stated that I advocated a similar amendment in committee. And let me say. I did so at the request of the Federal Reserve Board. Now. in the full committee markup session. members of the committee began questioning the effect of this amendment and the necessity for it. In order to be as helpful as possible to the Federal Reserve Board. I allowed their brilliant. erudite. knowledgeable counsel and membersnot members of the Fed. but the staffto come to the committee table and to explain the amendment and to make the arguments for the amendment. Very frankly. I have never seen such a dismal failure Ir my 26 years here. Jahuary 23. 1986 CO For that reason. I withdrew the amendment. I withdrew the amendment. Now. I feel that if this amendment should be considered it should be considered in conjunction with H.R. 20. The problem of daylight overdrafts access to the payment system by unregulated Jolding companies should be dealt with in H.R. 20. Now. yesterday. before the Rules Committee. as was stated by the Rules Committee chairman earlier today. I urged the Rules Committee to grant a rule on H.R. 20 in an expeditious. manner. noting the fact that the committee completed action on the bill on I also made reference to yesterdays Dimension case decided by the Supreme Court that makes urgent need for action on H.R. 20. Reluctantly. I must oppose this amendment and say to him that at the appropriate time it should be offered to H.R. 20. As a matter of fact. I think it would be wonderful if the gentleman were to withdraw the amendment at this point. and we will consider it in H.R. 20. where it properly belongs. Would the gentleman care to give that some serious consideration? I tried. the gentleman knows. in committee.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. I would say to the gentleman I do not like labeling this "safety and soundness." If that were the case. the payment system would have collapsed a long time ago. It has done well without this amendment. We do not need it today. We should consider it on H.R. 20. and then determine whether we even need it then. But as of the present time. I repeat. we have gone all this time without this amendment. the safety and soundness of the payment system has not been in jeopardy. I do not think it Will. be. between now and the time we address H.R. 20 on the floor of the House. For that reason. I ask for a "no" vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. and I hope we can get to a vote on this amendment expeditiously.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I will be very brief. Mr. Chairman. what we have here. and I commend the Minority. is a very ingenuous method of revisiting the Shumway amendment that was voted on by a teller vote. We will now have a record- vote. a iollcall vote on this amendment. I would urge that we again defeat the Shtimway. amendment so that we can expeditiously complete the bill. take care of the consumers and for those consuming Congressmen who have to go home and face their constituents. we will accommodate them. .so I would hope that we could not proceed to a vote on this amendment.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. and I rise in opposition to the substitute. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House. in 1978 the Federal Reserve Board told the Committee on Banking that it was studying the problem of a float and the use of everybodys money by the banks when they deposit a check. in order to make money for the banks and to preclude the depositors usingthe money that they have earned. Nineteen seventyeight. that was. 7 years ago. Two years ago we held hearings on the legislation before us. This past year we held extensive hearings on the legislation before us. We have a mandated schedule that says for the first 3 years you must give credit to people within 3 days. 3 business days. if within the area. 10 business days beyond. It says 3 years from now it should be the next business day and 4 business days if it is outside the State or the Federal Reserve clearinghouse district. What does the substitute do? It says to the consumers. "By golly. you have waited since 1932. 50someodd years. you can wait another 3. 4. 5 years." It says. "No schedules. no required time within which to give you your money. to allow you the use of your money." Instead. it says 18 months from now regulations will be published. 36 months from now they will decide whether these regulations should be not only published but enacted and requirements made that banks pay people expeditiously. in a timely fashion. for deposits. allowing them the use of their deposits. Ladies and gentlemen of the House. really and truly. I cannot see how anyone who has any concern for the consumers of his district and for this country can vote for this substitute. Five States already have enacted schedules either by statute or by regulation. Many other States are following suit. Are we. the Congress. going to say that if federally chartered institutions want to cop a plea they need not comply in those States where regulations or statutes are already in force and say to the people of this Nation. "The banks control the Congress. not the consumer?" I say this is an anticonsumer substitute. I urge its defeat.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. I cannot speak for what the other body may do. But. by the same token. I say to the gentleman he made a good point. The gentleman who offers this substitute would be the first to object to any legislation or a substitute that goes as far as this does without consideration in the committee. and yet he now wants to consider it.
Date: 1986-01-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. I join the rest of. my colleagues today on behalf of my constituency to extend our sympathy to the families of those that sacrificed their lives today on behalf of our country. Mr. Speaker. I think that in what we have heard from a lot of the Members. perhaps one thing that has been to the point of being mentioned but it has not. and I think that my tribute to them would be this: The world will send condolences to our President. Why? Because they saw it. I think this is a tribute to our country. to our system. to our heritage that we do nothing in a closed shop. That these brave men and women for the world to see. were there. They sacrificed their lives where every person in this world will be able to see. That is what space exploration is about. That is What legislation is about. That is what we do here today. That the principle freedom cannot be achieved unless it is in an open society. Equal rights and justice cannot be achieved unless it is in an open society. There we have for the world our successes and our failures. and they sacrificed in one of the failures their last devotion of duty to this great country of ours and to what it means to have a free. open society. I think the tribute in their lives should be dedicated. We should in fact dedicate ourselves to the fact that they were willing and that they went. But more so that our system of government allowed it for the world to see.
Date: 1986-01-29
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. last Thursday. the American consumer gained a cleancut victory when the House passed H.R. 2443. legislation to give bank customers timely access to their deposits. No sooner had the House acted than rumors began circulating around the lobbyists watering holes that the bankswho have lived high off the delayed funds gameplanned to exact a new price from the consumer if H.R. -2443 was to become law. The banks. unabashed by their billions of dollars of profits from the delayed funds. are now demanding a variety of new powers as a quid pro quo for giving the consumers the right to their funds as provided by H.R. 2443.. "Sure. well let our customers have their money if the Senate lets us dabble in retail businesses. the securities market. insurance. and whatever highrisk investment that happens to come alongof course. all the while with fewer regulators looking over our shoulders." seems to be the outline of the banks demandstheir pricefor granting -consumer rights. "Well let you be protected for a price." is the banks rallying cry. Itll be interesting to see whether the Senate will protect consumers basic rights without having to pay a further price. The merits of the various items on the banks legislative wish list should be decided on their own and not piled on the blistered shoulders of the already overburdened American consumer.
Date: 1986-01-29
Speaker: GLENN LOURY (democrat)
Chamber: S

Well. I was deeply moved. I was impressed with what I perceived to be the great strengths of character in some of the individuals. I was dismayed at what I perceived as the profundity of the problem that confronts us. I was encouraged by some of what I heard said. particularly the emphasis on values. The strength and the helping hand that I saw coming from some people indigenous to that community made me hopeful about the possibilities that we can. even at this late date. still make a significant dent in the problem. But. realistically. I was also chastened by the sense of the fact that weve got an awfully long way to go. It. willbe decades before we can actually turn the circumstance around. MOYERS. What do you think. each of you. music. .Every. every song you hear. Theres can be done to break the cycle of children no . . . no real message except more sex. born of children born of children? The third more lowering of your values and morals. generation. as you saw In the film. of teen- You cant even hear a good song. A song has age mothers in one family. What can be a good beat. But you listen to the words. the done practically? Specifically. words are outrageous.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill to make certain technical corrections to amendments made by the Food Security Act of 1985. and for other purposes. as amended.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Would the gentleman prefer that we discuss the issue as he brings up the issue. or should I refrain and let him make his statement and then have a colloquy?
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Our committee has met its obligation with respect to budget reductions and reconciliation every year. and we intend to meet our obligation under GrammRudman also. There was never. and never has been. and never will be. any intent to get around that fact.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The legislative history is that the conferees between the House and the Senate met. and in the recorded colloquies of the members of the conference and in the statement of managers. it is stated that certain Items were included. There was a mistake. several mistakes made in- the drafting of the Tecorded conference agreements.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

No. the gentleman is not being told that. But I would tell the gentleman that what we have here is the final product that was costed out by OMB and CBO. and that the President signed. and that the Secretary of Agriculture recommended that the President sign. We go back to that. February 4. 1.986
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE I GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman would yield further. the first one addresses the issue of crosscompliance. Whereas in the written text of the Food Security Act of 1985. it is made mandatory for wheat and feed grains. the Department of Agriculture has requested that we make it discretionary. Second. in the matter of the ASC Committees. again we give the authority for there to be more than one community committee in administrative areas that had more than three such committees on the date the farm bill was passed. The third change relates to the 5year averaging for wheat and feed grain bases. There was an additional 2year limitation that was inadvertently applied. in the language of the farm bill. for wheat and feed grain. The House amendment will delete the 2year provision.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am not certain that it necessarily will cost more. I do not know where the gentleman from Pennsylvania got his figures from.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. it may well be. if the gentleman would yield further. But I have had no communication at all from OMB. and I must insist that I continue under our assumption from our economists in the committee. from the CBO. that this puts us in the status quo. It may be that OMB has come up with figures. but I have no knowledgeof that. -
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. My reference to CBO is that we have nothing from CBO beyond what was costed out for the farm bill. and to my knowledge .there is no additional.cost under the bases provision before us today. Now if. OMB comes up and wants to take advantage. as my distinguished colleague says. that is something else. But we are back to ground zero where the farm bill was costed out and where we took off from and where we bring it back to.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. let me conclude with this: We cannot refer to any outside sources. and we cannot be interpreting at this point in this place. the words in the statement of managers and the colloquy that isin the RECORD between the conferees. House and Senate. based on what some Senate staff now thinks occurred to the contrary. Second. and I direct this directly to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. our committee. this committee. the Committee- on Agriculture of the House of Representatives. has been. I would say with respect to all the others. most responsible in the budgetary process. Even now under GrammRudman. of the. $11.7 billion that. must be sequestered. .we have been allocated $1.3 billion. which is roughly 10 percent. whereas we impact on the total budget around 3 percent. and commodity support programs impact around 1 percent of the total budget. And we have in the past 5 years reduced Federal expenditures. in a very responsible way I might add. close to $40 billion. We will continue to share our responsibility. Under GrammRutdman. we will do the responsible thing and work to avoid sequestration. Unfortunately. because of failures in other areas. it may go to sequestration. But we have always sought to make savings where the savings should be made. We have contributed. and in no way do we come here trying to get around GrammRudman or trying to do that that is improper or incorrect or trying to do something not open and above board. as the gentleman from Pennsylvania well knows. That is what our activities and our actions have always been on the floor of this House. We are not going to change that at this point.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. again I ask the Members of the House to give us your support in this legislation. which is technical amendments. . and which is needed because human. ..unintended mistakes were made. I assure the Members and give them our continued pledge that we will be responsible in budgetary matters. as we have been throughout the process in the past years. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1986-02-04
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the Senate bill just passed.
Date: 1986-02-27
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. during the era of the energy crisis. the State of Rhode Island and the entire New England region carried an enormous and inordinate burden. Family budgets were wrecked just to keep homes heated and all too many had to do without adequate heating. Our region paid an enormous price during the height of the crisis. Now. we have some who are suggesting that a tax be placed on imported oil just as prices are coming down and we are beginning to get relief in New England. When Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker was before the Banking Committee last week. I asked him about the issue and I am happy to report he was distinctly cool to the idea. "As a revenueraising measure. I dont think its all that effective." Chairman Volcker told the committee. Not only is it an ineffective means of raising revenue. but it would be patently unfair to the citizens of Rhode Island and New England. As I told Chairman Volcker. "The people of Rhode Island have earned relief." Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope that the idea of a new tax on imported oil is quickly dropped. Its a bad idea whose time I hope will never come.
Date: 1986-03-06
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I take this brief time to explain to the Members that.I am going to ask for a unanimousconsent request that we take from the Speakers desk the Senateversion of H.R. 4306 that encompasses most of what we try to do with the House bill. with the understanding and the commitment that we would have a separate vote on the dairy price reduction provision. We take this route. Mr. Speaker. because of the urgency of the situation. I apologize to the membership for the changes in direction that have taken place in the last several days. only begging you to understand that democracy and freedom are not a disciplined process and representation of the people through a body such as ours is not an exact science. Therefore situations change. forcing us to take expedient measures that we would. perhaps. rather not take. but the critical situation in rural America is such that we have to do that. What I will do in the unanimousconsent request is to bascially take from the Speakers desk the Senate version that has most of the items which we have in the House bill with the exception of a couple. Then we can send the bill to the President immediately rather than go through the process of conference and further parlimentary procedures. To those who still have an interest in certain provisions. we will have other vehicles. We will continue considering your concerns. and we will continue working with you.
Date: 1986-03-06
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the gentleman is correct on the need for quick action. We understand and we sympathize with the gentlemans concern. The commitment that I have made generally I make specifically to the gentleman. that we will pursue other avenues. We still have unanimousconsent requests. and we still have suspensions. We will continue working beyond today to see what we can come up with. We cannot cover all the items at one time and satisfy all of the Members who have concerns at one time. We have to go piecemeal. unfortunately and regrettably. But as the gentleman knows. we have worked with the gentieman and we will continue working with the gentleman. and I would hope that we would lBe allowed to take this one step in the direction all of us want to go. and continue with the other steps that we have to take.