macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1993-11-16
Speaker: D LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico conducted the first plebiscite in 26 years Sunday on the political status its people want for their island. The vote was an outstanding exercise of the democratic process. Over threequarters of the electorate may have participated. This is an extraordinary number for aplebiscite or a referendum. It is the highest to participate in this type of exercise in the history of *Puerto Rico. and there were no incidents. 48.4 percent of the vote was for commonwealth. 46.2 was for statehood. and 4.4 was for independence. The islands status remains a serious issue requiring our attention. and the Congress of the United States cannot Ignore this magnificent democratic expression by the American people of Puerto Rico. The Congress has a constitutional obligation to acknowledge the will of the people of Puerto Rico and give it serious and constructive consideration. The Federal Government should coneider the specific developments proposed and the various views expressed by the American citizens of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker. as chairman of the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs. I am advising my colleagues that the committee will hold a hearing on the results of the plebiscite and recommendations regarding them.
Date: 1993-11-17
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I want to first thank my colleague. the gentleman from California . for yielding me this time and commend him for his outstanding leadership on this issue as well as the gentleman from New MexIco . who has led this fight with the gentleman from California . Mr. Chairman. although the debate all day today has been spirited and too often marked by acrimony. the goal of everyone in this House is the same. The goal is Jobs for Americans. goodpaying jobs. good benefits. opportunity for all Americans to improve their lot in life and leave a better future for our children. How do we get there? Is it with NAFTA or without NAFTA? The opponents say without. Every living President says a future with NAFTA will be brighter. Presidents Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. and Bush and Clinton agree on that point. Every living Nobel prizewinner in economics says with NAFTA. Every objective study of the job impact of NAFTA In this country says with NAFTA. and there have been 18 of them. Every living Speaker of the House including my predecessor. Jim Wright. who is certainly a great leader in the labor movement in this country. says with NAFTA. Fortyone of fifty Governors. including my Governor. Ann Richards. says our future will be brighter with NAFTA. Mr. Chairman. the University of Texas recently completed a study. and it has projected job growth of 75.000 Jobs for the Fort WorthDallas Metroplex. 75.000 jobs in north Texas alone. My area has been hit hard by economic setbacks. and If we are going to give our families a chance to get back on their feet. If we are going to build a brighter future. we must seize this opportunity. NAFTA means jobs for Americans. NAFTA must be a piece of the future that we build for our children. I urge my colleagues to vote yes tonight. Let us make change a friend. Let us embrace change. and let us do this for our children.
Date: 1993-11-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to call upon my colleagues to pass an emergency unemployment benefit extension before we adjourn for the year. without the excess issues that we have considered earlier. We are preparing to go home yet we have not finished our work. By not passing this benefit legislation we signal to the American people that this Congress is insensitive to the needs of struggling families. As we begin the holiday season we must remember that families with an unemployed worker face uncertainty and are fighting not only to find new jobs to support their families. but to retain their dignity. Unemployment benefits allow families to retain their dignity and get through tough times. By passing this legislation we can make this Thanksgiving and Christmas a little brighter for families all across our country. Mr. Speaker. I say to the members that next week when we sit down to give thanks. remember that we can be thankful for our Jobs. Many of our constituents do not have that to be thankful for and we should not forget this fact next Thursday.
Date: 1993-11-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chairman. I rise today In support of H.R. 3351. the Alternative Punishment for Youth Offenders Act. As a State legislator I spent a great deal of time wouking on criminal justice Issues. especially on matters that related to Juvenile just matters. In my last term as a State senator. I was proud to have worked on a crime package that not only addressed the Issue of juvenile boot camps. but drug treatment facillties as well. Juvenile boot camps have proven an effective alternative for youthful offenders. Our prison system is far too crowded to continue packlng them with Juvenile offenders when more effective alternatives exist. Furthermore. our prisons have become a training ground for young criminals as well as a recruiting tool for gangs. By separating youths from this environment we Increase the chances that they can be truly rehabilitated. There are a lot of different Ideas about the best way to treat young offenders. With the rising rate of violent crime we hear repeated calls for action yet the solutions have proven Illusive. Boot camps are one effective method and should be encouraged as a means to reduce violent crime and rehabilitate young offenders. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill because It addresses the problem of juvenile crime with proven solutions. Our States have already created these boot camps and Federal assistance wil help strengthen those efforts. Thank you.
Date: 1993-11-19
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. during rollcall vote No. 588 on H.R.33W1 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present. I would have voted "yea."
Date: 1993-11-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the bill to clarify the regulatory oversight exercised by the Rural Electrification Administration with respect to certain electric borrowers.
Date: 1993-11-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Spbaker. H.R. .3514 simply clarifies a provision in the Rural Electrification Loan Restructuring Act. which is now Public Law 103129. which was recently signed into law. We would clarify the regulatory authority of the REA. basically in the loan structure with respect to a borrower whose net worth exceeds 110 percent of the outstanding principal balance of all loans made or guaranteed by the REA. The REA and the Department of Agriculture felt that the legislation was too broad. and this clarifies that. Basically. that is the intent and thrust of the bill. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3514 simply clarifies a provision in the Rural Electrification Loan Restructuring Act (Public Law 103129) which was recently signel into law. Under H.R. 3514. we would clarify the regulatory authority the Rural Electrification Administration is to exercise with respect to a borrower whose net worth exceeds 110 percent of the outstanding principal balance of all loans made or guaranteed to the borrower by REA. H.R. 3514 would amend section 306E of the recentiysigned REA lending law. This provision seeks to ensure the elimination of unnecessary and burdensome requirements and controls imposed -on those REA borrowers whose net worth exceeds the 110 percent. Since enactment of the legislation. the Department of Agriculture has brought to our attention its concern that section 306E Is overly broad. The committee. after consultation with owl the administration. agreed upon the bill we now have before us to clarify section 306E. The bill amends section 306E of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to make It clear that REA Is to minimize the regulations Imposed on any REA borrower whose net worth exceeds 110 percent of the borrowers outstanding loan balance. and the Administrator of REA is to ensure that the security for any loan made or guaranteed by REA Is adequate. H.R. 3514 further states that nothing In the new proposed section 306E limits the authority of the REA Administrator to establish temns and conditions with respect to the use by borrowers of the proceeds of loans made or guaranteed by REA or to take any other action authorized by law. Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3514 will ensure that REA has the authority It needs to protect the public Interest. This bill was reported out by voice vote of the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 3514 also has the support of the administration and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. the organization that represents REA borrowers. I urge passage of the bill.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. I appreciate it very much. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of the National Child Protection Act of 1993. It is a very. important companion bill to the bill that was introduced by. the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act. the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act. and the Lime Research. Promotion. and Consumer Information Act of 1990 to -revise the operation of these acts and to authorize the establishment of a fresh cut flowers and fresh cut greens promotion and consumer information program for the benefit of the floricultural industry. and for other purposes. as amended.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. this legislation provides for authorization language and legislative changes for four commodity research and promotion programs--what we commonly call commodity checkoff programs. Three of the titles of H.R. 3515 make various changes in existing research and promotion programs--those for eggs. watermelons. and limes. Title III establishes a new checkoff program for the cut flower and cut greens industry. The purpose of a checkoff program is to allow participants in an Industry to join together to fund and operate national market and product development efforts for their commodity. Generally. the objective of these kind of industryfunded programs is to Increase sales of the commodity through consumer education. product research and advertising and promotion activities. H.R. 3115 was introduced by myself.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. LzwiS]. The gentleman has been very active in this legislation. and specifically on the lime promotion that impacts Florida. Texas. and California. I wish to thank the gentleman for his cooperation and also his availability to work with us in areas such as this. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is to assure the gentleman from Texas that we will look at these issues. We will continue looking at these issues. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 1994. the Environmental Research. Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1993. This bill refresents several months of bipartisan work to create a framework to address fundamental research questions about the "environment using longterm. innovative methodologies. Authorizing over $400 million in programs. H.R. 1994 will provide for the establishment of an environmental monitoring and assessment program. expand biological diversity research. lead research and risk assessment research. I support H.R. 1994 for another reason as well. All too often. lowincome communities are subjected to decades of toxic and hazardous waste dumping. Even with the many advanced technologies that are available today. we do not have a very clear idea of how chronic exposure to hazardous chemicals affects residents health. Nor do we have much in the way of longterm solutions to abate these hazards. Traditional removal techniques which use moving soil from one lowincome community to another are an unacceptable quickfix. H.R. 1994 takes strong steps toward developing the information necessary to cleanup the many dangerous health and environmental hazards which exist today. I would like to thank the chairman and the gentlewoman from Maryland for their leadership.
Date: 1993-11-20
Speaker: DR LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. at this time I certainly want to commend my colleague. the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. for the magnificent representation that she affords her constituents. the way that she has brought this issue to the floor so that It could be debated before the American people and. in fact. before the world. Let me say. Mr. Chairman. that I found the remarks of the gentleman from Vermont very interesting. I thought that they knocked down a lot of the statements that had been made on the other side. The only thing I have a concern is that I certainly hope It does not begin a movement for a constitutional amendment to remove Vermont from the Union based on population. Let me say that we have heard all of the excuses and all of the obstacles that have prevented the residents of the District of Columbia from achieving their goal of firstclass citizenship presented again here -today. As the leader of the free world. we have to do better by 600.000 U.S. citizens living in the District of Columbia. Disenfranchisement is not in keeping with a representative democracy. The Districts locally generated revenues exceed those of 20 other States. but taxation without representation at the present time is alive and well in our Nations Capital. The District has a viable economy that enables it to meet and sustain the full force of selfgovernment for the past 30 years. Federal payments have amounted to less than 20 percent of the citys budget. What further commitment to democracy does the Congress require of the District? My colleagues. since 1871. Congress has wrestled with the issue of status for the District of Columbia. As with all disenfranchised people. there comes a time when the chains of oppression must be broken. The residents of the District of Columbia are U.S. citizens who are entitled to enjoy the fruits of full participation in democracy. The residents of the District pay Federal taxes. and they pay local taxes. They vote in Presidential elections. They elect a mayor and a council and they fight and die for our country under the Commander in Chief in times of war. My colleagues. there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a State from existing within the District. We have the authority from the Constitution to create any democratic form of government that we so choose so long as a Federal enclave remains. The overall objective of statehood.for the District is. as stated by the President. to control ones destiny. As a Delegate from the Virginia Islands. I can certainly empathize. To be denied a voting Representative in the body that rules on ones affairs is. to the very least. a handicap. I urge my colleague tomorrow on this issue to vote a resounding yes for H.R.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to amend the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act to modify the provisions governing the rate of assessment. to expand the exemption of egg producers from such act. and for other purposes. and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. S. 717 is analogous to title I of H.R. 3515 that was passed under suspension by the House on Friday. S. 717. like the Housepassed bill. makes a number of changes in the current egg checkoff program. The changes will allow for an increase In the maximum assessment rate. subject to approval through a producer referendum. The bill exempts those egg produoera who have 75.000 laying hens or fewer from the assessment. S. 717 allows for an assessment rate increase up to only 20 cents. The House bill would have allowed the assessment rate to be Increased from the current 10 cents per case to up to 30 cents. Section 3 of the Senate bill requires that in future years. the Egg Board allocate a proportion of funds for research comparable to the proportion for research funded in fiscal year 1993. The House bill had no similar provision. It is not intended that this language be a rigid formula and the language specifically provides that this Is to be done only to the maximum extent practicable. The Subcommittee on Livestock of the committee has not had hearings on this provision. and we may find It necessary to revisit this provision. Mr. Speaker. I would like to clarify a provision in the bill. Section 5 states that the amendments to the egg research and promotion order necessary to implement all of the amendments made by the bill would be subject to informal rulemaking and not sibject to a referendum. However. section 5 is basicaUy intended to cover only those amendments to the order necessary to implement section 4 of the bill. which raises the exemption level for producers from 30.000 laying hens to 75.000 laying hens. and section 3. Under the amendments made to the basic act. any increases in the assessment rate would. of course. be subject to formal rulemaking and a referendum. The informal rulemaking requirements of section 5 would thus apply to decreases in the assessment rate. the change in the producer exemption. and the research provision. These items are not subject to a referendum. Mr. Speaker. the passage and enactment of S. 717 before the end of the year would allow USDA to initiate these changes in an expeditious manner. I urge the passage of the legislation.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to amend the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act to expand operation of the Act to the entire United States. to authorize the revocation of - the refund provision of the Act. to modify the referendum procedures of the Act. and for other purposes. and ask for its Immediate consideration In the House.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. S. 778 makes vaious changes in the current watermelon research and promotion program. and It is comparable to title II of H.R. 3515 which passed the House under suspension on Friday. Like H.R. 3515. S. 778 lowers the referendum -threshold. There are. however. four differences between the Housepassed bill and what Is here in the Senate bill that I want to point out. We are agreeable to accepting S. 778 on this Side. S. 778 increases the assessment exemption for importers to those importing less than 150.000 pounds a year. as compared to the House bill which said less than 75.000 pounds a year. S. 778 does not include the House language providing for a 5year base period for establishing the average yield per acre. Currently. the watermelon assessment is collected from all domestic producers with 5 acres or more. S. 778 increases the assessment exemption threshold to 10 acres. Finally. S. 778 deletes the requirement for formal hearings to amend the plan. and requires informal rulemaking and referenda to amend the plan. The House bill had no similar provisiom Mr. Speaker. the Senate language is acceptable. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the legislation.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DB LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to authorize the establishment of a fresh out flowers and fresh out greens promotion and consumer information program for the benefit of the floricultural industry and other persons. and for other purposes. and ask for its Immediate consideration in the House.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. " Mr. Speaker. S. 994 provides legialatve authorization for the establishment of a new industryftmded checkoff program for the cut flower and cut greens industry. Basically. the provisions of S. 994 are similar to title III of 1I. 3515. The legislation establishes a checkoff program with administrative procedures and structure similar to that used for other industryfunded research and promotion programs. The Senate version does have two differences compared to the Housepassed bill that I want to highlight. After reviewing these differences. we are agreeable to accepting the Senate version. The House bill would place one retailer on the PromoFlor Council. Some concern has been expressed within the cut flower Industry that a greater retailer presence is needed. S. 994 adds two more retailers to the board. thus increasing the size of the Council to 25 members. In addition. S. 994 will require the use of the assessments collected from the industry to cover the full costs of USDA In conducting referenda and administering the order Issued under the legislation. with no exception for the salaries of USDA employees We believe the Senate language improves the legislation. I urge passage of the legislation.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to amend the Lime Research. Promotion. and Consumer Information Act of 1990 to cover seedless and not seeded limes. to increase the exemption level. to delay the Initial referendum date. and to alter the composition of the Lime Board. and for other purposes. and ask for its immediate consideration In the House.
Date: 1993-11-21
Speaker: DR LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. S. 1766 provides for legislative changes in the current research and promotion program for limes that was established by Congress in 1990. This bill is similar to title IV of H.R. 3515 which the House passed under suspension on Friday. Both bills would: First. replace the scientific name used in the underlying law with the correct scientific name. second. increase the assessment exemption level from 35.000 pounds per year to 200.000 pounds. third. require the referendum no later than 30 months after assessments begin. and fourth. alter the board composition to more fairly reflect the structure of the lime Industry. Mr. Speaker. I support approval of S. 1766 so that our Nations lime industry can move forward In restructuring its research and promotion board consistent with these legislative changes. I urge passage of the legislation.
Date: 1993-11-21
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 S. 717. S. 778. S. 994. and S. 1766. the four Senate bills Just passed.
Date: 1993-11-22
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speakers table the Senate bill to extend the suspended Implementation of certain requirements of the food stamp program on Indian reservations. to suspend certain eligibility requirements for the participation of retail food stores in the food stamp program. and for other purposes. and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.