macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. as mination of several months of work by choice. the gentleman knows. we have been the Housing Subcommittee and I com- Finally. I would point out that the working with him on this problem for mend the subcommittee chairman. Mr. authorization level of $15 billion for a number of years. and I think there GONZALEZ. the ranking minority fiscal year 1988 is significantly lower should be no question whatsoever but member of the subcommittee. the gen- that the amount actually spent for that the outline just presented by the .tlewoman from New Jersey. Mrs. Rou- fiscal year 1987. and it is below what gentleman is absolutely and entirely .KEMA. the chairman of the Banking was authorized in both the House- and Senatepassed versions of the bill. In light of the budgetary problems which we now face. I believe that the HouseSenate conferees have not only been responsive to the housing and community development needs of this country. we have also been fiscally responsible. Again. I commend my fellow conferees for their work on this legislation and I urge everyone of my collegues to support the adoption of the conference report.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts . whose district adjoins the First Congressional District of Rhode Island.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the intent of the statement of managers is that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is directed to develop an energy standard that provides the lowest total costs for manufactured home owners. The conference report reflects the fact that the conferees accepted the language you and the gentleman from California offered in this area and I fully expect HUD to abide by the instructions we provide in our report.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MFUMEl. a member of the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware . a member of the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I want to conclude by stating that the road to this evening has been a very rocky one. It has been many years. I would state that the last significant housing bill was enacted in 1983 when it was tied to the IMF legislation. How was this accomplished this evening? A lot of work by a lot of people. has led to this evening. However. I think that throughout. one of the more important factors involved was the fact that people kept their word. In the legislative process so much can be accomplished if Members can rely upon each other to keep their word. Long ago in my introduction to the legislative process when I was first a member of the State legislature in Rhode Island. the longtime speaker of the house called me aside and said. "Remember. you are a young fellow. You have been elected at a very young age of 22. As you go through the process. if you can remember that your word is your bond. you will accomplish a great deal in the years ahead." During this conference I.found that with all my fellow- conferees. both House. and Senate. their word was their bond and that is why we are here this evening. I urge adoption. and I hope that we have a unanimous vote on this conference report. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1987-11-09
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. and include extraneous and tabular material. on the conference report just agreed to.
Date: 1987-11-09
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill. H.R. 2167. the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers. punctuation. and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in passing this bill.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairmman. I am urging the committee to report H.R. 435. a bill to set uniform poll closing times for Presidential general elections. This legislation is sponsored by our colleague. the gentleman from Washington. The legislation was referred jointly to the Committee on House Administrations Subcommittee on Elections and to tire Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism and Hazardous Materials. The bill would set a uniform closing time for polls across the Nation for 9 p.m. eastern standard time. The bill would further extend daylight saving time for States in the Pacific time zone through the day of the electionan additional 2 weeksso that polls on the west coast could close at 7 p.m. rather than at 6 p.m. The purpose of this bill is to prevent. during Presidential general elections. early broadcasts of exit poll results from Eastern States which discourages voters from voting in Western States. where polls would not yet be closed under the curreut system. Recent technological advances have given the media the power to determine and broadcast election outcomes to Western States where polls are still open. based upon interviews with voters in Eastern States as they leave the voting booth. These early. yet nearly accurate -predictions of election winners do not give voters in Western States any incentive to vote. The result is disenfranchised. discouraged voters. Once a voter has been discouraged from voting in the Presidential election. it is unlikely that he or she will show up to vote for the Statetand local candidates whose races occur on the same day. In these races. often decided by a few hundred votes. discouragement of voters at the national level can have a destructive. irreparable effectwhich. in turn. damages the integrity of the democratic voting process. Nonpassage of this bill during this Congress will send the message that voters in one part of the country are more important than voters in another. The presidents of the three major television networks agreed in 1985 not to broadcast exit poll results in a State until all polls in that State have closed. They held true to their. agreements in the 1986 elections. However. the problem remains unsolved unless polls in every State close at the same time. As legislators we must guarantee full and equal voting opportunity for all U.S. citizens. I fully support this legislation and urge that it be passed by this Congress.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman is making an eloquent statment on behalf of poll workers and I think all should be concerned about that. But as the gentleman knows. my district is immediately adjacent to Indiana so I am familiar with the time zone and the weather conditions and the darkness and the like. but I think the gentleman underestimates the interest that we should have in the voters even though it is in Indiana. I say that meaning that I do not want to -invade the province of those public officials in Indiana. but I think as fellow Americans we ought to have some sensitivity. and those in Indiana might even enjoy the opportunity. to vote beyond the time of 6 p.m. In Ohio recently we became an enlightened State and extended voting hours to 7:30 p.m.. and I have no objection to extending it further to 9 p.m. to allow voting. and it is a case of extending in this case the enfranchisement. I say to my colleague from Indiana.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We like to feel that the President is elected by all of us. even those who come after 6 p.m.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

But she also stated. reclaiming my time. that it has a favorable effect upon the residents of Hawaii since the results would come in later in Hawaii. So it is in the same vein. that is. beneficial in Hawaii. But. as with many other aspects of this bill. it is not perfect. We have not reached the millennium with this legislation. But is a considerable improvement. and the gentlewoman from Hawaii did testify that it would be beneficial to the people from Hawaii. I would like to also say while I am on my feet in this regard that with reference to a statement previously made with regard to the television networks. the television networks have taken action. As I understand it. that was part of a package. And even though we do not have a signed contract on it. I think it is up to the Congress now to do our part. The television networks have done what they could. They have shown their good faith. I think this bill is the other shoe. This bill is taking them up on the informal offer and I am not sure we can expect them to continue in the vein of selfsacrifice in order to help in the enfranchisementand that is what this bill is. And as I addressed the gentleman from Indiana when he spoke. surely the public officials. the State officials should be respected with regard to election procedures in Indiana. but as we have noted in many constitutional areas. the enfranchisement of Americans is a matter we are all concerned about. So we are all concerned about that. For that reason I oppose the gentlemans amendment.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman is suggesting what amounts to censorship. These are not Federal officials he is referring to. This is what the networks would call hard news. These are factual reports of results. It cannot be analogized with the exit polls. The exit polls. as has been suggested before. are concoctions. They are manufactured bits of news. They are something which has been assembled. and through various processes deductions have been made.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

So. Mr. Chairman. this is hard news. These are facts. and what I think the gentleman issuggesting would amount to censorship and would be so recognized. In all this discussion and investigation up to this point. nothing of that sort has occurred. There Is nothing in this legislation that effect which would censor anything. The question of whether Congress may legislate a prohibition on public officials. I think. would amount to that.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman. I am sure. certainly is not saying that a little bit of censorship is all right. I say that because simply this is the only point. But also I might add that this is the centralfact. The Presidential result is the central fact and the reason this legislation has been worked around. It is the publication of the results of the Presidential election. If it were not .for that publication. if it were not for those facts. if it were not for the election results on the Presidential election. this bill would have no reason for being whatsoever. I want to add one other thing. I do not want to protract this forever. but I think it is clearly censorship.
Date: 1987-11-10
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. With reference to the unworkability of this amendment. it would provide a prohibition which sounds like a criminal prohibition. but no penalty. as the gentleman stated. and therefore. somebody would have to run into Federal court and get an injunction against the anticipated release. It is ridiculous kind of an exercise. and is unworkable.
Date: 1987-11-16
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. .anyone who has been working with the American Association of Retired Persons is familar with the name Cyril Brickfield. For 12 years the AARP has benefited from his keen leadership and
Date: 1987-11-17
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is what we are asking for. that we look further to see how we minimize the economic impact. More turtles are killed. 90 percent of the turtles die from the beach to the water. for those who are not enlightened in that area. More turtles die from the protecting of the ecosystem. More turtles die because of the natural evolution of what happens in the ocean. It is not man. it is not the shrimper. We are trying to get the money to have more turtles. We are seeing. that they get from the beach to the water. We are trying to see how they can survive better. That is the positive side. and both can be done. It is not a contradictory need that we are expressing today. It is a collateral. it is a collateral because you can and I can work to save the turtle. But we have to work to save the shrimper. and both can be done in unison. one helping the other. So do not make this an issue of you are doing away with the Endangered Species Act. We are not. Do not make this an issue that you do not care about the endangered species. Here is one who does. The issue is very simple: fairness. You are going to do it inland. you do it in the gulf. Two. look at the economic impact. and that economic impact can be disastrous or it can be positive. as it goes hand in hand to save the turtle. That is the end result that I am looking forward. to save the turtle. but the other endangered species called the shrimper needs to be helped along the way.
Date: 1987-11-17
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture may have until midnight tonight. December 17. 1987. to file certain reporting on H.R. 3030. the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987.
Date: 1987-11-17
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Education and Labor have at long last reached an agreement on H.R. 1340. the Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC amendments of 1987. This legislation was reported by the Committee on Agriculture on July 13 of this year and sequentially referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. It passed the House on August 3 and the Senate on August 5. Extensive changes have been made to the bill. and while I would have preferred the bill in the form it passed the Committee on Agriculture. the differing views of my colleagues resulted in the compromise bill before us today. This bill is. designed to improve the distribution of commodities that are donated to food assistance agencies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 and section 32 of the act of August 24. 1935. The amendment to the bill does not change the responsibility of the Secretaryof Agriculture in acquiring commodities or in removing surplus commodities from the market. Further. the amendment does not in any way alter the current jurisdictional status of the Committees on Agriculture and Education and Labor regarding the commodity distribution programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I urge my colleagues support of the bill as amended.
Date: 1987-11-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. I want to as briefly as I can try and put this debate in the proper perspective. One. I think that all of us from agriculture and rural America agree with the thrust of what Mr. TORRICELLr insists he is trying to do and that is to trace the funds. cash payment. no disagreement with that. His intention. which all of us share. if somehow the U.S. maritime industry can be assisted. we also agree. My concern here though is that if it would be disruptive of agriculture atthis point it comes at a very bad time. The 1985 act Is just now coming into its own. We are just now seeing the results. The cost is coming down. the tools that we have given the farmers are beginning to work. rural America seems to be coming out of the terrible recession that it was in. Now is not the time to mess with it. As a matter of fact. I think that we have as level a playing field as we now need. with all of the necessary tools. exporting enhancement. the safety net for the farmer. the income support. all of that is coming into play. Regrettably. as it happens hereand I have no quarrel with itthat In another committee where the thrust is otherwise. and legitimately so. but the intention. the thrust and the expertise comes from another direction. it would have a tendency to tilt another sector of the American economy at a very difficult time. So I would hope that we would for the time being exempt agriculture. not that we cannot keep looking at the issue. because cargo preference I think is here to stay. and I think it has a legitimate place in our Government. what I am saying is not now. not here. not while we are just coming off of our knees. Not now. because that is a problem that we have just barelywe are just barely starting to straighten out. If you tilt the playing field against us. then you would have reversed the paid and the agony of the 1985 act and the taxpayers money that has come into it and the expectations that we have told the American people. agriculture and all who get fed by the American farmer that we would nullify by some really not Intentional act but good and proper sounding activity or action in this Chamber. And I would hope that for the time being. and I commit myself and pledge that I would continue working with the gentleman. with the committee and with everyone In good faith. but that we accept this amendment for now so that we do not tilt against the unfortunates who are just now coming out of a very difficult situation.
Date: 1987-12-02
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding and extend to him and to the gentleman from New York my congratulations for their leadership on this very important matter. Mr. Chairman. I would like to voice my strong support for H.R. 3676. a consensus bill which merges the concerns of five committees with jurisdiction over ground water research legislation. H.R. 3676 is the result of efforts made by many Members and reflects the work of the Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism. and Hazardous Materials. which reported to the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 21 this year. I believe that this legislation appropriately addresses important issues raised by the committees. including matters considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill assigns responsibility to the President to coordinate the activities of Federal agencies which characterize. manage and protect our Nations ground water resources to assist the States in restoration of our ground water resources. It requires the establishment of a clearinghouse for information about ground water on matters such as new technologies for monitoring ground water quality or providing a remedy to contamination. Further. H.R. 3676 designates EPA as the lead agency for a research and development program for the protection and management of ground water. The program would be carried out in consultation with State and local governments and would include availability of Federal assistance for funding various projects. It does many things such as requiring the administrator of the EPA to conduct and publish a risk assessment analysis for significant ground water contaminants. Ground water quality is an issue of national concern. In virtually every State. water quality problems have been found in the ground water. and this has understandably led to significant public concern. Increasingly. people are becoming more aware of what is in the ground. the dangers. Ground water is the source of drinking water for more than half of the United States population. and for over 90 percent of our rural citizens. However. there is a consensus that water managers at the State and local levels lack the data they need on both the quantity and quality of our ground water resources. This was confirmed In a report released last year by the National Academy of Sciences which reviewed the efforts of State and local governments to manage ground water and concluded that. "There are no data available on a national or even regional scale to estimate the extent of ground water contamination or the impact of this contamination." In recent years. various agencies have been given authority over aspects of our ground water resources. This bill Is a necessary step toward generating the more comprehensive body of information which State and local governments will need to effectively manage their ground water resources. I hope that we will take that step today with the adoption of H.R. 3676.
Date: 1987-12-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. this amendment is a very simple amendment. I appreciate the Rules Committee allowing us to present it. I will be very brief and explain it to my colleagues. This amendment deals with the Commodity Credit Corporation. which plays a central role in implementing the farm programs authorized under the Food Security Act of 1985. Traditionally. the Commodity Credit Corporation has operated with money borrowed from the Treasury and later reimbursed in a appropriation act. The use of Treasury borrowing authority gives the Secretary of Agriculture the flexibility he absolutely needs to manage the programs efficiently through the Commodity Credit Corporation. This funding mechanism insures that obligations to farmers are paid on time and that the program can respond effectively to unpredictable shifts in the agricultural economy. H.R. 3520. as reported. which is incorporated into House Joint Resolution 395 by reference. proposes not to replenish the Commodity Credit Corporations Treasury borrowing authority. rather it proposes to move to a system of individualized advance appropriations. This procedure is not authorized in law and it would endanger the programs which the CCC operates. allocating funds for specific functions. so that target price payments. price support loans. commodity purchases. and so on. would be allocated specific funding. What this amendment does. it would allow the Secretary. after advance notice to the Congress. to transfer funds from one CCC appropriation item to another. It is a very simple amendment. as I say. Mr. Chairman. It allows the Secretary to shift funds within the CCC programs from one category to the other. after advance notice to the Congress. I would ask my colleagues to support our amendment.
Date: 1987-12-03
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississipp i.: . :: . . . December . 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORTY- HOUSE H 10947 Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance essary and it runs right counter to the Mr. DE LA GARZA. I yield to the genf my time. appropriations process. tleman from Montana.