macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1986-10-08
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I pose of debate only. to the gentleman. ask unanimous consent to take from from Tennessee pendthe Speakers table the bill ing which I yield myself such time as I to reauthorize appropriations to carry may consume. out the Commodity Exchange Act. and to make technical improvements to (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given that act. with a Senate amendment permission to revise and extend his rethereto. disagree to the Senate amend- marks.) ment. and agree to the conference Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker. House asked by the Senate. Resolution 577 is a rule providing for
Date: 1986-10-08
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. two thoughts struck me when I heard that my friend and colleague JOHN SEIBERLING planned to end his career of service in this body. The first was that I hate to think that a Member that I respect and admire so thoroughly will not be around. This will be a loss to each of us who return to serve in the 100th Congress. The second thought was that I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with him. As a member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. and one who has consistently served on his subcommittee. I can say without reserve that JOHN SEIBERLING has had a major impact on conservation. the environment. historic preservation. and on the territories and commonwealths that make up the U.S. insular areas. In each of these areas he has been a leader. and his imprint has been one of sensitivity and commitment to sound solutions to often difficult. if not confounding issues. I am particularly going to miss JOHNs concern for the U.S. insular areas. His knowledge of the political history of the territories and commonwealths. of their struggle for economic self sufficiency and political autonomy is shared by less than a handful of our colleagues. I have been guided by his insight. and the knowledge that he will not be here is sharpened by this realization. I certainly hope that this country will continue to be fortunate enough to find leaders like JOHN SEIBERLING. Personally. I certainly am going to miss him.
Date: 1986-10-09
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I find it particularly disturbing that many banks across the country have begun to lower the fixed 5.5percent Interest rate they pay on passbook savings accounts. This is not what the Congress intended when it passed legislation designed to remove this interest rate cap and thus insure that small savers be paid a market rate on their money. For years. Federal law prevented banks from offering more than 5.5percent interest on passbook savings accounts. In 1980. I was successful in pushing through a change in the law to authorize the phase out of the unfair limitations on what consumers could be paid on their savings. This April. the phaseout became complete. Despite this. banks have been choosing to pay less than 5.5percent interest. Indeed. some banks are offering as little as 4 percent. Peanuts may be fine for elephants. but not for the consumer. The small saver deserves a fair return on his or her money. Recent figures show that SuperNOW accounts are offering 6.41 percent interest and U.S. savings bonds 7.02. The Congress voted to phase out the ceilings on passbook savings accounts at the urging of small savers who could not meet the then stiff minimum balance requirements for higher yielding money market accounts. Yet here we are in 1986 and small savers are no better off than they were in 1980. There are a few bright spots. however. In my home State of Rhode Island. Peoples Trust Co. is offering 5.8 percent on its savings accounts while Marquette Credit Union in Woonsocket is offering 6.8 percent. Across the country. others are following suit. But more needs to be done. I urge all federally insured financial institutions to give consumers the best break possible on their passbook savings accounts. Otherwise. I have no qualms about urging these same consumers to move their estimated $327 billion in passbook savings accounts to other higher yielding accounts. no matter how much the banking Industry "doth protest."
Date: 1986-10-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 30 seconds. just to correct the wrong perception that I have witnessed. and I say it very respectfully. of the nature of the amendment. If we read the amendment. we would know that it does not apply within 25 miles of the border. If we read the amendment. we would know that it is not- limited solely to California. If we read the amendment. we would know that it is not limited solely to aliens. I am talking about American citizens working in a field. I am talking about resident legal aliens. it is not aimed. nor is it our intent to protect illegalitywe just want equality in the application of the law. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington
Date: 1986-10-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Kentucky accepting and agreeing with our committee. This amendment is solely to give to all citizens the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. That is all that we do. We ask for equity. we ask for justice. we ask for equality. and we ask for an "aye" vote on the amendment.
Date: 1986-10-14
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my deep concern over a section of the miscellaneous tariff bill. H.R. 5686. that the House will consider today that would. for the first time. allow watch and watch components to receive dutyfree treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences [GSP] Program. Mr. Speaker. one of the major employers in the State of Rhode Island. is Speidel. the company that invented the twistoflex watchband. Speidel has been an integral part of the Rhode Island economy for many years. along with the other jewelry manufacturers in my State. Unfortunately. Speidel today is the only survivor of a domestic industry that has been destroyed by imports. There are no other American manufacturers of watchbands still operating in the United States. Speidels business has dropped by more than 40 percent over the last 5 years and its employment has fallen by more than half. Imports now control more than half of the American market in watchbands. With the serious problems that now face this industry. I must question the need for a provision that will provide an additional incentive for imported watches and watchbands to enter this country. Our Nation already has one of the most open economies in the world. Imported watches are finding no problems in competing in our markets. So why do we need to provide dutyfree treatment for such imports? The proponents of this bill believe that this legislation will help save the jobs of the employees of a specific company. This company has already moved all of its watch assembly offshore. Most of its components are also manufactured abroad. But the proponents argue that by allowing watches and watch components into this country dutyfree. this company might become a little more competitive and the jobs of their remaining American employees might be saved. The implied threat. of course. is that if this provision is not passed into law. those jobs will go overseas. - I clearly empathize with the problems that domestic manufacturers are having with meeting the challenge of lowcost imports from abroad. My State has lost thousands of jobs to imports. But providing dutyfree treatment for watches and watchbands will only further damage what remains of this fragile industry. It is the wrong solution to this difficult problem. I hope that this poorly conceived section of the bill can be eliminated from the legislation before it becomes law.
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 590. the rule just adopted. I call up the conference report on the bill to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the Commodity Exchange Act. and to make technical improvements to that act.
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. Mr. Speaker. briefly. Mr. Speaker. the committee and the conference committee agreed on the text of the legislation which is the Commodity Futures Trade Commission. The other body then added various and sundry other bills and we have to concede the point that they were not germane and they were extraneous to the matter. Therefore. I find myself in the situation where I could not but otherwise yield to the point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. the House version of the CFTC. as I have explained previously. did not contain this item of legislation. The other body amended the bill and added other items. Mr. Speaker. this is a very difficult situation for us inasmuch as a majority of the members of the conference. indeed a majority of the members of the committee. would support the item that the other body has inserted into the legislation. I support it. Mr. Speaker. and the fact is that it is a needed item as far as income and cashflow for the very. very precarious situation of agriculture. The problem is that we tried and we could not work a similar amendment for corn. as the gentleman from Illinois was desirous of. As difficult as it was for us. we had to go along with the request of the other body. Therefore. I would hope that the Members of the House would support the committee. because we will not be helping anyone by taking away something that could assist farmers in trouble. it will not be of any benefit to corngrowers. and goodness knows they need the help as much as the wheatgrowers. We tried. we honestly tried. It was just not technically feasible to do what we would have liked to do. I had hoped that the distinguished gentleman from Illinois would not interject this point of order and would not request a vote on this issue. but. inasmuch as he has. I reluctantly and with great respect would hope that the House would sustain our position and give assistance to those who need it and not prejudice them by not helping anyone. as much as we would like to help the other sector. because you do hot help a friend by injuring another one. This is a nowin situation as far as the House is concerned. I might add that it is not a moneybudget item. It does not impact upon the budget. That is the reason we had difficulty with the corn. No matter how we drafted it. it would impact negativewise upon the budget and goodness knows that no one more than I would want to satisfy the needs and the request of the gentleman from Illinois. but it was just physically and technically impossible. We would hope that the House would support the committee and not grant the point of order. or if the point Of order is granted. that the House then by voting will support the committee and help those farmers who are indeed in trouble and in need and not prejudice them because we cannot help others. because you cannot say that you will benefit one by taking from another. No one gains in that manner. Mr. Speaker.
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker. again let me reiterate what I have stated before. If It had been technically possible. if it had been feasible to do for all of the commodities that was done in the other body. we would have done it in the conference. I will have to cede the point that this is not the best way to legislate. But once having been done. we have no control over what the other body did and our control then is here with what we do now. I find myself in a situation I think of a parent that has two children but he can only buy shoes for one. Shall he not buy for the one and leave the two barefoot. or should he buy for the one and hope that he can buy for the other down the line? That is about the situation we are in. Everything else I think is superfluous. We worked together on the farm legislation. Our intent is to continue working together. But I do not think that we can in effect punish one sector for the ingenuity of some of the Representatives by denying them what they request under the guise that we have not done it for all of the others. I do not think that is fair. I wish that- I could Just step aside and let the House work its will. I will ask in all fairness that the House work its will. but I feel in my heart that I cannot say no to a farmer in need because we cannot help the others. One at a time perhaps we can get to all and that will be done. and we will continue working toward that end.
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Tennessee .
Date: 1986-10-15
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time. and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.
Date: 1986-10-16
Speaker: RALPH M. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the amendment I am offering today will clarify and make more consistent a provision that I inserted in the bill during its consideration before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Under this provisionSection 4(b)(3)as reported from the Committee. the U.S. Boxing Commission would not be authorized to certify as a boxing promoter. boxing matchmaker. or boxing manager any person who had been convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of more than 1 year. At the outset we first included everyonethen watered the requirement down by. in effect. grandfathering all present convicted felons. Now we have agreed to water it down further with the exceptions agreed to in this amendment. I want to make it clear that this provision does not affect anyone who is currently engaged in these activities. However. an important exception is includedand that exception provides that any such person who has received a pardon or has had the conviction expunged from his record will be eligible for certification. as in the bill as reported. Since the bill was reported from the committee we have been told that there are some states in which misdemeanor convictions carry sentencing provisions of more than 1 year. My intent with this provision was to make convicted felons ineligible for certification. unless they had been pardoned or had their record expunged. but not prohibit from certification persons convicted of misdemeanors. What we found when we first attempted to draft this provision was the utter lack of consistency among the States in the classification of crimes between felonies and misdemeanors as well as in sentencing provisions. I believe this amendment clears up a problem that has concerned a number of members. The amendment makes it clear that in any State In which a misdemeanor conviction under State law provides for a sentence of more than 1 year. then the 1 year provision will not apply. Thus. a person convicted of such a crime will be eligible for certification. Mr. Chairman. in closing I want to respond to another of the criticisms that has been raised about this subsection of the bill. There are some members. I understand. that feel the 1 year of imprisonment sentencing provision should be higher. perhaps 2 or as much as 3 years. They feel the 1 year is arbitrary and is set too low. As I mentioned. with the complete lack of consistency among the States. we selected 1 year because 1 year of imprisonment is used to classify Federal crimes as either felonies or misdemeanors. I think the Federal standard is useful here. and although it. too. may be arbitrary. there is considerable precedent. I also suspect we would find that. if we were to carefully survey the States. one year would be closer to the breakpoint between major and minor crimes than sentences of 2 or 3 years. For that reason. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose any attempts to liberalize the 1 year provision. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1986-10-17
Speaker: BERKLEY BEDELL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Congressman BEDELL is a person who is more concerned I think about the problems of other people in Congress than he is about his own problems. He has never had any serious problem here. of course. but he has had a health problem which has now been conquered. I also want to call attention to the man who is now in the chair of the House of Representatives as these proceedings are going on. General MONTGOMERY. who has been the able chairman of the prayer group. a very constructive group in Congress. It is a place where Members have met together. meet together every Thursday. It is a brotherhood. a fellowship. worshipping and at the same time thinking about each others problems and the problems of the country. The reason I am injecting that into this discussion here this afternoon is because if you listen to all the things that came just before this. a lot of them are matters of tension about whether we should have SDI. what kind of weapons we should have. whether we can balance the budget. whether we can do all of these things. I am reminded of one time when I was practicing law the senior member of the firm talked with me. It was a good firm and represented a lot of the most wealthy people of this country: Alfred I. Dupont. Edward Bok. Charles Deering and others. This gentleman called me into his office and said. "I see in you an interest of perhaps going into politics." I said. "That is correct." He said. "Why would you possibly want to take that on? This is a very stressful sort of life to live and it is not really very rewarding actually in your life." I felt myself thinking. well. I see it differently from how he sees it. I think actually if we can solve some of these problems in the country. that is a very rewarding thing indeed. I will conclude my remarks by saying that I just want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. BERKLEY BEDELL. who has been such a fine Congressman here and has thought so much of other people and their problems and has been such a constructive Member in legislation and in his own personal life. We are very much blessed by the fact he has been here. We are sorry lie is going back. .October- 17. 1986 Hl11316 but we are delighted he has served us as he has.
Date: 1986-10-18
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. we have reached a very preposterous point here in the House. The House of Representatives sent to the other body in January of this year by an overwhelming vote legislation to give relief to the consumers of this Nation whose funds are not available to them once they have deposited them in financial institutions. known as the delayed funds availability legislation. Subsequently. in June of this year. this House. after working its will. sent to the other body a housing bill. Mind you. Mr. Speaker. both of these measures passed the House with bipartisan support. not partisan legislation. but rather bipartisan legislation. The House worked its will on both issues. Well. nothing happened. nothing happened. nothing happened. Lo and behold. we came closer and closer to the end. The administration and the regulatory agency told us that we enact the regulators legislation or regulators bills. as well as FSLIC recapitalization. Being a responsible committee. being a responsible body. wecame to the floor. We brought those two bills to the floor and packaged with them the previously adopted housing bill and the previously adopted delayed funds availability legislation. It came again before this House in a bipartisan fashion under suspension of the rules. Debate was had. The legislation was adopted unanimously by voice vote. And we now have been waiting and waiting and waiting. So what is happening now? The other body feels that. boy. they now have the House where they want it. Ladies and gentlemen of the House. we have acted responsibly. And I now serve notice on the other body.
Date: 1986-10-18
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. the House is acting and has acted responsibly. I want to make it clear. however. that we have done our duty. We are not going to accept or have shoved down our throats at the last minute of this session anything that we do not agree to. So I assure my colleague from Texas and my fellow members of the Banking Committee that we are not going to accept just anything at all that comes down the pike. We are going to be heard from. We will discuss it. And nothing is going to be railroaded through this House.
Date: 1986-10-18
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I take this opportunity to inform the leadership of the House that the Banking Committee. particularly in the person of its chairman. wants to be kept informed and alerted to anything that comes over from the other body within the jurisdiction of our committee. because this is a very important matter and a very sensitive matter. and my committee wants to be kept fully informed. We are waiting word from the other body. We are available to talk.
Date: 2007-01-05
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to show my support for the House rules. as we are dealing with them today. but I am also calling for an independent investigating arm for the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to lend my full support to these changes to our House Rules. These rules are the foundation that will govern how this body operates. but also serves as a reflection of our collective values and character. I have served almost 6 years on the House Ethics Committee. I have seen more investigations than I care to in the last 6 years of Members on both sides of the aisle. These rule changes should restore a tone of civility and honesty in this chamber and that is why I am supporting this package and urge all my colleagues to do the same. However. I would like to raise an issue that is not contained in this package today. I strongly believe. that the House Ethics Committee needs an independent investigative office. Currently. my colleagues on the Ethics Committee and I are tasked with determining whether rumors and innuendos have any merit to launch investigations that at times bring disgrace to this body and end the careers of our colleagues. We are the Court of Congress. yet we serve as both the investigators and the judges of our colleagues. This is no easy task. Those of us on this Committee have accepted this position and stand poised to enforce the Rules of the House and preserve the integrity of this body. However. it would be beneficial to the Members of the Ethics Committee and this House if we had an independent investigation arm so we may have unbiased. thorough information regarding any accusation of impropriety by a Member of this body. I believe this would help remove any partisan sentiments regarding origination of investigations and may help restore Americas faith in our ability to enforce our rules. With this information the Members of the Committee would then determine whether or not there is sufficient information to further the investigation. or take action on the issue before the Committee. Allowing an independent investigating office to begin investigating then bring information to the Ethics Committee would not make our job easier. but it would help us have this nonpartisan information to do our job better. I strongly support the changes proposed today. but I believe it is necessary for us to begin a dialogue on creating an Independent Investigative Office to serve the House Ethics Committee and the House of Representatives.