macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1983-07-12
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I shall not utilize the 5 minutes. I would merely like to inform the membership of the fact that my information earlier was that we would probably have one to two or possibly three votes. My information now is that we would be having a minimum of four record votes with debate on two amendments that would be time consuming. That being the case. It would be impossible to keep my word to the leadership and to the Speaker to be out of here by 7 oclock this evening. However. I have discussed the situation with the Speaker and he has assured me of the fact that we would return to the housing bill tomorrow when the House convenes. Under those circumstances. Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise.
Date: 1983-07-12
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Committee oil Agriculture. H.R. 3385. A bill to provide equity to cotton producers under the paymentinkind program: wit h an amendment (Rept. No. 98289). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House oil the State of the Union.
Date: 1983-07-12
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

nil Mr. LowRY if W01Vshiiitonl. II.J. RS. 10t3: Mr. GUNDItsON. Mr. HANSEN of Idnhn. Mr. PPITeIADn. anl Mr. OLIN. II.J. Res. 174: Mr. WEISS. Mr. TAX.fEi Mr. GONZAt.z. and Mr. RoiEsT F. SMTn. II.J. Ris. 179: Mr. MvCuniY. Mr. ANNITNZio. Mr. RATlitORln. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. THAXI.Ei. Mr. WISE. Mr. HIGHTOWER. Mr. FoRD of MiChigan. Mr. SYNAl. Mr. LEVINE Of Calilornia. and Mr. LENT. H.J. Res. 207: Mr. COnCOnAN. Mr. WAi.ma:N. Mr. DoNNEI.Y. MrS. 1oxER. and Mr. 13AT:s. II.J. Res. 227: Mr. MCDONAIn. Hl.J. Res. 270: Mr. AnnAuIsO. Mr. AI.k.XANn:it. Mr. ANosnEWS OF Nowrn CAROLINA. Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. AUCoIN. Mr. BARNARD. Mr. 1BARNES. Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. 13EnEI.. Mr. hE:fuTERi. Mr. HiEvil.. Mr. 130miiiiT. Mr. IloLANn. Mr. BoNnR oF TENNESsEE. Mr. hIiTT. Mr. Buooiirmi.n. Mr. howN of Callfornia. Mr. CHAPPIE. Mr. CoNYEsS. Mr. PII.IP M. CHANE. Mr. CHOCKETT. Mr. DAtll.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. reserving the right to object. once the Clerk has started to report the amendment. we will have no objection. H. 5070
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman. the amendment before the House at this point might sound attractive. and. of course. if the packaging and the nomenclature used to describe it were to be accepted at face value. it might well be acceptable. However. we have to look behind the packaging and the nomenclature at the actual facts and at what the resuilts will be rather than at what we might hope the results might be. We must not be fooled by the term. "negotiated rate." and the connotation it carries. because that suggests equity is better served this way than by permitting a borrower and lender to negotiate the terms of the loan. The fact is that the parties are not on an equal footing. The borrower is at a distinct disadvantage. and the negotiations are going to conclude at one point and the rate is going to be set by the lender. Amen. Case closed. That is the only result of a negotiation between a lender and a borrower. The borrower comes in and looks for a mortgage. but the buyer comes in once or twice in a lifetime. The lender is lending money on a daily basiswho knows how many times per day. The borrower very badly and sadly needs that home for his family. and if he or she is told that he or she is going to have to pay a high rate. indeed that Is what will happen. As to the argument that the points would be lessened or done away with. with all due deference. bankers. S&L people. lenders. and mortgage bankers. are in business to make a profit. Points have become a way of life with them. and there is no way that we are going to eliminate or in any way reduce the number of points with an amendment such as this. The gentleman is well intentioned. I have very high regard for him. but. very frankly. I am afraid that his amendment will not accomplish that which he would like to accomplish. Of equal significance is the fact that the FHA rate has served as an incentive in the industry to keep mortgage interest rates lower than otherwiseat least for the lower portion of the market. And. to the extent that points have been either formally or informally limited. the result has been lower borrowing costs for the lower end of the market. which is precisely the sector that we traditionally have targeted FHA to serve. So even with points. the FHA rate serves to maintain relatively reasonable mortgage interest rates for moderate income home buyets. That is what FHA was all about when it was conceived almost 50 years ago and that is what it is about today. Perhaps it is even more appropriate today. when we all know how interest rates are fluctuating at tinprecedented high levels. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of the moderate income home buyers to assure that they have at least some chance to realize the American dream. Many of these families will more than likely be cut out of the market If the FHA rate is allowed to float as the gentlemans amendment would permit. Mr. Chairman. for those reasons. I must oppose this amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is a typographical error. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to have the word "mortgagor" in the third line of the amendment itself changed to the word "mortgagee."
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I will not take the 5 minutes. If what we are talking about is doing away with those extra points that are being charged at the present time. I have wanted to do that for the last 18 years in this Congress but I have always been told that you could not do away with it. But when listening to the arguments by the proponents of the pending amendment. they seem to think indeed we can. Well. if that is the case. why just pretend to do it? Let us indeed do it and do it with statutory language. . That is the thrust of the amendment. It would limit the points to one point to be paid by the purchaser. and none by the seller. so that the seller need not increase the price of the home that he is selling in order to compensate for those points he would have to give to the lender. I am sure the lenders will all be happy about this because in this way they will not be getting all of that money up front that they have been getting up front for that long period of time.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Excuse me. The gentleman is on my time. The point is that -I listened to your argument and the arguments of the proponents of the legislation. You are giving the American people the feeling and conveying to them the thought the Bartlett amendment would indeed do away with points and reduce points to where they would no longer exist. If that is the case. as the fellow says. let us put our money where our month is and let us just prohibit any points beyond the one point permissible to be paid by the purchaser.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Did not the gentleman in his dissertation in support of the amendment extol the merits of the amendment because of what it would do to eliminate these ugly points?
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I think everybody would love to get rid of exhorbitant. extortionate points being charged at this time. and this is one way to do it. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York Just made a wonderful argument for my amendment to the amendment. when he referred to the upfront payment which meant that the purchaser was paying interest for 30 years. even though he might own the house for only 12 years. I further note that the gentleman from Ohio is impressed with the expertise of the gentleman from New York. I wish he would be as impressed with that expertise of the gentleman from New York with respect to the Wylie amendment that I understand we will revisit on the motion to reommit. to wit: The rent control amendment. You talk to Mr. GREEN. his eXpertise is there from his service with HUD in New York. I thank the gentleman.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to propound a few questions to the sponsor of the amendment. The gentleman from New York referred to the fact that this side had not discussed the demonstration program or addressed it during the debate. I would like to ask a few questions on that*very point . No. 1. how did the negotiated interest rate under the demonstration program compare to the FHA rate set during the same time period? Do we statistics on that?
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

By the way. and incidentally. where is this report that we are talking about on the FHA negotiated rate demonstration program? We do not have the benefit of that report.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. we do not have a report. The second question: What was the difference between the discount points charged under the demonstration program and those charged under the regular FHA program during the same time period?
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman in his arguments on behalf of his amendment stated that his amendment would reduce the number of points that are charged. Now I am asking the gentleman to tell us what the differences were between the discount points charged under the demonstration program and those under the regular FHA program.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. we are about to vote. The gentlemans arguments were to the effect that the number of points charged were rbduced under the demonstration program. so he should have this information with him in hand--
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Well. if the gentleman will yield further. I am just asking for this report. The gentlemans amendment is based on the demonstration program and the results of that program. I have another question on that program. The demonstration program differs from the proposed amendment. in any case. since under the demonstration program the Interest rate and discount and the points .charged were binding for at least a 30day period. Therefore. the purchaser could go out and shop around to determine if he or she could get a better deal. Whereas this amendment does not even include those limited consumer protections. What was the impact of the 30day commitment period. does the report tell us that? Obviously not. since the report does not yet exist. does it?
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield further. the point is that the 30day commitment period that was included in the demonstration program is not included in the gentlemans amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I think the purpose of my perfecting amendment. has been accomplished and that is to point out that. in reality. the proponents really do not mean to do away with the point system because they know. as the chairman of the subcommittee pointed out. and as we all know. one way or another those points are going to be charged. Under the circumstances. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my perfecting amendment to the amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Seriously. as one who has worked with the program. the gentleman has given the Members of this House a very clear understanding. for those who might have been a little confused by the debate. of what FHA is all about and of what we can do and what we cannot do with FHA and what the importance of FHA is to that first home purchaser. That is very important. And I just want to commend the gentleman for his very wonderful statement because I think it is very helpful to all the Members of the House.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present and object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I make a point of order that a quorum is not present and object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the majority has looked at the amendment. finds it acceptable. and we have no objection to the amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. the gentleman will recall that we had a conversation with the chairman of the subcommittee. and I. myself. have queried people from HUD over the years on this very point. By the same token. in looking at the gentlemans amendment. although we agree with its purport and its purpose. we do have a problem with the working of the amendment. We would like to work with the gentleman. have a hearing. and do something in the near future when we are prepared to commit ourselves to that. if the gentleman would be gracious enough to withdraw his amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Very early hearings this year in the subcommittee. As I say. I share the gentlemans concerns. and I want to work with him to cure this defect.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. with the cooperation of the genial gentleman. an alumnus of our committee. we would like to see if we cannot get this thing rolling along. We have looked at the amendment. He has made a very strong case for the amendment. We would be very happy to support his amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

If the gentleman will yield. I would like to again thank the gentleman for this colloquy and commend him for bringing this to the attention of the House because it was certainly not our intent to allow this limitation or this $50.000 second mortgage to be utilized to circumvent the existing absolute ceiling of $108.300 for singlefamily residences or the higher multifamily limits now in effect for the first mortgage or a combiration of a first and second mortgage. to wit: If an additional second mortgage is granted It cannot and should not and it is not the intention of the legislation that that mortgage do indeed increase the limits now in effect.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman would seek the indulgence of the Chair for a moment and sk for orderly procedure in trying to dispose of this legislation. If we could allow the gentleman from Oklahoma to be recognized first. his amendment would be title VI. and the other amendment then could be title VII. so we would dispose of everything that was noncontroversial and address the controversial item last.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I have consulted with the minority. and what we would like to do at this time is ask unanimous consent that all time on this amendment and all amendments thereto expire in 30 minutes. the time to be equally divided between the majority and the minority.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may require to the chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman. I. too. wish to rise in opposition to the amendment now before the House. Though wellintentioned. I am sure. the actual result of the amendment will be to say to renters. and potential renters around the country in the areas where there Is a lack of rental housing available and as a result prices for renting units are skyrocketing. that "there will be no relief for you under this legislation. you the taxpayers of this Nation. the middleincome people." It will ask us to trade a new program that will assist 75.000 families. at least 15.000 of which must be low income. it will stimulate new construction or rehabilitation where it Is desperately needed for an additional 15.000 units of section 8. onefifth of the number of units. It would ask us to trade 6.300 new units of housing for 2.700 units of section 8. By transferring funds to the section 8 program the gentleman would assist only 17.700 families instead of assisting 83.000 families as the bill now provides for. through the rental production and section 235 prograins. Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that the tradeoffs will be worth it. I join the previous speakers. We heard from rural America. none other than WES WATKINS. Mr. Rural America. And we heard from CHUCK SCHUMER. Mr. City. Mr. Big Apple. Mr. New York. The two poles. opposite poles. standing here together In concert in opposItion to this amendment. what more could speak so eloquently than to see that occur on the floor of this House. Mr. Chairman. I ask for the defeat of this amendment.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I demand a separate vote on the socalled Bartlett amendment to title V II 5092 relating to the elimination of the requirement that Federal Housing Administration interest rates be set by law.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would like to conclude very briefly by stating that the gentleman fiom Ohio said that we require access ramps in Federal buildings that are federally subsidized. Certainly. Certainly. But what he is asking here in this amendment is that we say to these communities that have decided on their own to have rent control you cannot have it because Uncle Sam knows better than you. If that is the case we should have adopted the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from New York yesterday that would say yes. and indeed we will also tell every community in this Nation what their building codes should be. should they use plastic tubing and piping or copper tubing and piping. and what the size of the door should be. and how many entrances and egresses there should be. and how many fire escapes. We have decided over the years that we would not do that because that is too much interference. Why should we interfere here? Let these cities make up their own minds. For those of you from the South and States righters. this is a States rights issue also.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that. in the engrossment of the bill. the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers. punctuation. and cross references and to make such other technical and conformilig changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill. H.R. 1.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (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 legislation just passed.
Date: 1983-07-13
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. for the record I would like to say that I wish I would have an opportunity to bring my amendment to the floor. but I cannot do that under this rule. Mr. Speaker. once again this House is being asked to weigh its judgment on the Caribbean Basin Initiative. But. unlike last December. this House will not be allowed to express its views on an amendment to that legislation that is of vital concern to Ihe future stability of its territories In the Caribbean. especially the U.S. Virgin Islands. That amendment would have protected our rum industry. and when we speak of that industry. we are just not looking out for the jobs directly generated. but for an industry that through a unique relationship mandated by Congress nearly 30 years ago. generates revenues that now equal nearly 20 percent of the entire operating budget of the U.S. Virgin Islands. We are speaking of thousands of Jobs. of schools and ports. and housing and health care. Above all. we are speaking of the fiscal integrity of the U.S. Virgin Islands and our ability to maintain economic. political. and social st.ability. The amendment I had wanted to bring before the Members of this House was not only a fair one. it would have improved the CBI. Over 125 Members of this House. including members of the leadership. cosponsored my amendment effort and I am grateful to them for their support. I regret that the Members of this entire House will not have the opportunity now to hear the arguments for this amendment because this is a very important issue. This is not an issue that has a mainland constituency. and this absence became only too apparent a disadvantage when political decisions were being made on amendments to the CBI. But this is an issue that will have a telling effect on the impact of the CBI in the Caribbean. and on the future policy of the United States. and particularly this Congress. toward the territories of this Nation. The Virgin Islands consistently expressed its willingness and its desire to work with the administration. work with the Congress in resolving this issue. in seeking an equitable compromise. in looking for a solution that would be in the best interests of all concerned. I would like to state for the record that we never refused to negotiate and compromise. What we have seen. Mr. Speaker. is territorial policy be put not only in a back seat but In a rumble seat to a foreign policy that may or may not work. The bottom line. Mr. Speaker. is that what should have been viewed as a policy decision was treated as a purely political deciSion. I am still hopeful that this can be worked out and I will continue to pursue all avenues to do so. That is my responsibility as a Representative of the U.S. citizens in the territory of the Virgin Islands. As such. I cannot vote on this floor. but if I could. I would vote against the rule which prevents a case being made on this floor for those citizens whose only recourse is to this House. I thank you. Mr. Speaker. for your personal concern and Interest over the past few months. and all my colleagues who supported me on this issue.
Date: 1983-07-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the bill to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949. with a House amendment to tile Senate amendment thereto. and to recede from the House amendment with an amendment.
Date: 1983-07-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to provide equity to cotton producers under the paymentinkind program. as amended.
Date: 1983-07-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3385 Is entitled a bill to provide equity to cotton producers tinder the paymentinkind program. The key to this bill can be summed up in one word. Fairness. What this bil is about is the basic principle that the Government of the United States should deal fairly with its people. The