macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1984-06-07
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I have introduced a resolution declaring July Ice Cream Month and July 15 as Ice Cream Day. I would invite my colleagues to join with me. if you have not already signed the resolution. Ice cream is good for you. If you feel dejected or frustrated. eat ice cream. if the legislative processes frustrate you. eat ice cream. if you are happy and want to celebrate. eat ice cream. Not only will you help an industry and American workers but it is good. it is just plain good.
Date: 1984-06-07
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Samuel Pierce. agreed to a proposal to expand the list of eligible cities for the rental housing development. program (IHODAG). enacted as part of the Housing and UrbanRural Recovery Act of 1983. from the original HUD proposal of 41 cities of over 50.000 to 133 cities of over 50.000. The rental housing development program is a new rental production program whereby the Federal Government makes grants to local communities to enable them to build rental housing for low- and middleincome people. These Federal grants may be used in a number of ways to reduce the cost of rental projects so that rents are affordable to low- and middleincome people. The agreement reached by Secretary Pierce and myself yesterday will enable 133 cities of over 50.000. which is 23 percent of all cities of over 50.000. to be eligible to apply to HUD for grants to build new rental housing. I am pleased that Secretary Pierce accepted my proposed expansion of the original HUD list and will take the steps to Implement this expanded eligibility and regulations to be published in the Federal Register shortly. This new rental housing program was the major innovative effort pushed by congressional Democrats as part of last years housing authrrization bill against strong administration opposi. tion. The administration sought to limit the scope of this rental program by devising a formula that would eiclude many older and larger cities of our Nation from being able to apply for grants to build new rental housing. The original HUD proposal would have made eligible only 7 percent of all cities over 50.000. My proposal. agreed upon yesterday. expands this eligibility to 23 percent of all cities of over 50.000 to be made eligiblo to apply for these rental housing grants. The agreement between myself and Secretary Pierce represents a compromise by both sides since my original proposal would have provided this assistance Vo 251 cities as compared to the administrations 41 cities. If HUD officials had discussed their original proposal with myself and other members of the Banking Committee before they had drafted these regulations this dispute would never have occurred. In any event. this issue has been resolved favorably for both sides.e
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to grant a Federal charter to the Vietnam Veterans of America. Inc.. as amended.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. town of Rutland. Vt. a few years ago. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished which is home to chapter 1 of the gentleman from California . The State of Vermont has one of the
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: RALPH M. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

PARRIS. and Molinari Rodino Tauke Moore Roe Tauzin Morrison (WA) Rose Thomas (OA) Mrazek Rostenkowski Torres Murphy Roukema Torriceili Murtha Rowland Towns Myrs Roybal Traxler Natcher Russo Udall Neal Sabo Valentine Nowak Savage Vander Jagt OBrien Sawyer Vento Oakar ScheUer Volkmer Obey Schroeder Walgren Olin seiunler Waxman Ortiz Seiberling Weaver Ottinger flharp Weiss Owens Shaw Wheat Panetta Shelby Whitley Patman Sikorski Whittaker Patterson Sisisky Whitten Pease Skeen Williams (MT) Penny Skelton Wilson Pepper Slattery Winn Perkins Smith (PL) Wirth Pickle Smith (IA) Wise Porter Smith. Robert Wolpe Price Snowe Wortley Pursell Solar/ Wright Rahall Spratt Wyden Rangel St Germain Wylie Ratchford Stark Yates Ray Stokes Yatron Regula Stratton Young (AK) Reid Studds Young (MO) Richardson Swift Zschau Hitter Tallon NOES102 Annunzio Hartnett Parris Archer Holt Paul Badham Hopkins Petri Bartlett Hunter Quillen Bateman Hyde Rinaldo Bereuter Jones (OK) Roberts Bilrakis Kindnems Robinson Brown (CO) Kramer Roemer Burton (IN) LaFalce Rogers Byron Latta Roth Campbell Leath Rudd Cheney Lent Schaefer Coats Lewis (CA) Shunway Cooper Lipinski Shuster Craig Livingston Sijander Crane. Daniel Lloyd Smith (NE) Crane. Philip Lott Smith (NJ) Dannemeyer Lowery (CA) Smith. Denny Daub Lungren Snyder DeWine Mack Solomon Dreier Marriott Spence Duncan Mazzoli Staggers Edwards (OK) McCandless Stangeland Emerson McCollum Stenhollm English McEwen Stump Fields McGrath Sundquist Franklin Miller (Oll) Taylor Fuqua Mollohan Vandergriff Gradison Montgomery Vucanovich Gramm Mo rhead Walker Hall. Ralph Nelson Watkins Ball. Sam Nichols Weber Hamnmerschmidt Nielson Wolf Hansen (UT) Packard Young (FIA
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this rule. That is the only thing we have to face today. not whether we are going to pass a bill some days from now or whether we are not going to pass a bill. We have one thing to do. and that is to pass a rule. I do noc think anyone in this body would take the position that we do not have to do something. If we vote against this rule today. we are in effect saying we are not going to do anything. I think that is a bad position to take. We all know that this is not a perfect bill we are dealing with. Moses could not have come down from above with one that everyone would have agreed with. and we are not going to get one here. But we ought to have an opportunityand I believe this sincerelywe should have an opportunity to consider what this Committee on Rules has done. They have come forth with 69 approved amendments that will be offered. How can we be more fair than that? So I think it behooves each one of us to vote for this rule and let us have an opportunity to vote on the main issue in question.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendments offered by the Committee on Agriculture to H.R. 1510. the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983. I speak in behalf of the Committee on Agriculture. Later. if time permits. I will speak in my own capacity on other areas of the bill. Before I proceed. Mr. Chairman. let me say that any amendments offered by the Agriculture Committee. and any statement that I might make as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. in no way detracts from my admiration and respect for the gentleman from New Jersey. chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. and the distinguished ranking minority member of that committee. and the two gentlemen on the subcommittee. the minority member and the chairman of the subcommittee. who have worked so diligently on this legislation. Our disagreements. if some may be deemed disagreements. are of substance and our amendments offered by the committee. I hope. are of a constructive nature. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendments reported by the Committee on Agriculture to H.R. 1510. the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983. The primary amendment recommended by the Committee on Agriculture is an amendment sponsored by
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I rise only to state to my distinguished colleague from New York that we agree. for the concerns expressed by the gentleman are the concerns expressed by the Committee on Agriculture. and the witnesses who testified before our committee. The question that the Committee on Agriculture was left with. was: Do you hire undocumented or do you have a legal process for the period that you need them? Thus the major concerns that the gentleman expressed are addressed to the SimpsonMazzoli bill. which is the wrong legislation at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Under the Panetta amendment that will be offered. every effort is made to see first ascertain whether or not domestic workers. citizens or legal resident aliens. are available. And I say resident aliens because in my particular area of the country. many of the domestic workers are permanent resident aliens. legal immigrants who are not yet citizens. My congressional district is home base for a majority of the migrant agricultural workers in the United States. many of them are my friends and neighbors. and. no one more than I. wants to protect their interests and to see that every available job in the United States is there for .them. all the way from Texas to Callfornia. to Delaware. to Oregon. to Washington. But the fact is that the present H2 program has not been working. Let me tell the gentleman that we checked with the Department of Labor and as far as we know. no H2 nonimmigrant visas have ever been granted in agriculture in south Texas. Now and then Immigration allows a musician. a mariachi band. or an artist. but no H2 visas in agriculture. I get upset when they point the finger at this legislation and label it as Hispanic. that somehow Mexico has contributed the most illegal or undocumented aliens in the U.S.A. Not so. I would like to inform my dear friend from New York that the majority of the undocumented are not in agriculture. they are in some other type of endeavor. For the benefit of those who claim that H2s take jobs away from domestic workers. let me give you some facts: In the year 1976. the total H2s were 29.778. and of these 761 were from Mexico and 9.325 from Jamaica. We selected Jamaica because of the proximity to the South and to the Northeast. In 1977. 27.000 H2s977 were from Mexico. In 1978. 22.000 H2s. were in the United States. and of these only 1.189 were from Mexico. In 1979. H2s totaled 15.487. and 950 were from Mexico. So where is this clamor that the Mexicans are coming in and taking jobs away and replacing domestic workers under the H2 program? A computer error of some kind erased the figures for 1980. I am told. In 1981.. they did not have a breakdown. and they have no figures for 1982 and
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would state to the gentleman that he II15565 has very correctly identified why they left from Mexico or Jamaica. It is more difficult for Jamaicans to come illegally. because of the ocean barrier. while in the Southwest. in the land border areas. the accessibility of the undocumented easily moves him to work within the system. The gentleman also is addressing the basic question of the gentleman from New York. why the undocumented is comingwell. we know the reason. He is coming to find a job.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chariman. I wanted to state to both of my colleagues. the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New York. that the role of the undocumented worker is insignificant in agriculture. It is of considerable impact in other areas of employment. beginning with all kinds of jobs in San Antonio and stretching all the way to Chicago. Michigan. and New York. That issue has to be addressed differently than in agriculture. Since the SimpsonMazzoli bill does not adequately meet the needs of this particular sector of American business. this is an attempt by the Agriculture Committee to modify or enhance. if possible. the SimpsonMazzoli bill. But we make all efforts to see that it does not adversely affect the interest of our domestic workers. our thrust here is to give some relief or assistance to those in agriculture who testified and made a valid case of need for workers at a specified period of time. We can leave them to the resources which they must now rely on. which is the undocumented worker. which is bad for the worker. bad for the employer. bad for the system. bad for everyone. Our amendments are an attempt to tailor the inflexible provisions of the SimpsonMazzoli to respond to the needs of our nations agricultural industry.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. What we offer is in behalf of agriculture. but again I repeat that the main problem of the undocumented is not in agriculture. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

A major part of the problem that our distinguished colleague from Texas is concerned about was imposed upon us by other legislation and by Labor Department regulations. that they have almost made It impossible under the crew leader registration and under limitations placed on transportation and methods of transportation. that it has made it almost impossibli for people from our area to go to the vastness of the United States under legislation which I am sure the gentleman probably voted for prior to this. so it is not a fair asumlption that this PanettaMorrison amendment is in a vacuum unrelated to any other area. Part of the major problem has been imposed on us. Yes. maybe there were abuses. but they were very harsh on imposing what type of transportation. what type of bond the crew leader must have. They made it almost impossible for someone to take them from sooth Texas to any other part of the country. leaving them only to their own resources to travel !n their own vehicles and that is part of what has been imposed by other legislation. That may well have been what the problem was with this apple grower. not that you have alien or guest workers. but rather the transportation. the recruitment and all of the very harsh and onerous I think regulations Imposed by the Labor Department.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I want to assure all my colleagues that the first. last. and every intention of the Agriculture Committee in our deliberations was for the protection of the domestic worker. That has been and will be the case. No matter how you read it or what you read into the legislation. that is the intent. I think the chairman of the subcommittee and his coauthor and myself as chairman will declare it the legislative intent of this amendment. handled by the Agriculture Committee. that in no wa: it will prejudice the domestic worker.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

You have to make it clear that he does not name. but he can request by name. it does not have to be granted by the agency. but he can request by name?
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. allow me. for the balance of my time. to wear two hats again. to clear up a few of the misconceptions that I notice. and to express my personal views on the SimpsonMazzoli bill. 1 1 .5 571 I am concerned that we will be legislating at a time when we definitely need enlightenment on this subject. For example. in the agricultural sector. my area. and I have in my congressional district and surrounding congressional districts. the largest number of domestic legal farmworkers. My utmost concern is for them. But certain current laws and regulaLions emanating from prior legislation from some wellmeaning individuals have made it almost impossible for our migrant workers to go to North Dakota. South Dakota. Michigan. Delaware. Oregon. Washington. That has worked to the detriment of the domestic worker and has opened up this vast Pandoras box of the undocumented. I agree 100 percent with what has been said here that there seems to be a certain degree of hypocrisy. I agree with that. because the basic legislation that is in the books now. the proposal that we are having to deal with. forces us into some very uncomfortable and perhaps undesirable amendments. but we have to consider these in order to protect our workers and pur industries. The American consumer is the best fed in the world and gets the best quality food in the world for a lesser amount of disposable income than any other people in the world. It concerns me tremendously that the whole context of the discussion earlier today was about the unscrupulous employers who exploit. They speak as if every undocumented is exploited. No so. It is the exception. not the rule. As I travel throughout the country. I see in our culture that the employer is the godfather of the little baby of the undocumented who hails from Guanajuato or some other part of Mexico. Central. or South America. These workers develop a familylike relationship. A good employer loves a good employee. He makes money for him. lie helps him. and he is not going to abuse him. The unscrupulous employer is the exception. Let me tell my colleagues: If the laws on the books now are applied correctly. such as wage and hour checks on the employer. OSHA. Internal Revenue Service. the Food and Drug Administration. a multiplicity of Government agencies. if these agencies carry out their duties. no employer can get away with employee abuse. The employees can be from the Moon. Mars. Timbuktu. or wherever. but when the Feds come to check the employer. they check his books to see if he is paying the minimum wage or not. if he has a safe place to work. if he is paying social security. if he is paying Internal Revenue. and so forth. So I am disturbed that this has been the tone. because there are other laws on the books that deal with this. and it would be very difficult for an employer not to get caught when there are so many Federal agencies checking him. regardless of who his employees are.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: SAM B. HALL (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. do I understand from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture that he is saying that we have enough laws on the books today? If they were enforced. we would not need this law that we are worrying about here tonight.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me go back. For me to keep some undocumented out. I do not now have to go show a drivers license when I ask for a job.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Or a credit card. but I would under the SimpsonMazzoli bill and that is an imposition which is unconstitutional. I do not care who says what. where or how. when I have to do one more thing than giveall I should have to say is. "Mr. Employer. you say you want a yard man. I want to be your yard man." and it should be between he and I. He says. "Yes. I want you to be my man." or "No. I dont want you to be my yard man." But you are forcing the employer to ask me. "Have you got a Social Security card?
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Then he has to say. "OK. now. let me cheek the list." "Oh. yes. how about a drivers Iicme?" It is not any of his business whether I have a drivers license. nor yours. in the Federal Establishment.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I reject that. because you are asking an American citizen to do something beyond the norm so he can be identified or separated from the undocumented. You do not have to show a drivers license now. You say. "Well. we are going to ask tie undocumented to do it." That is fine for the undocumented. but it is my constitutional guarantee that I should not have to do that. It Is just wrong. plain wrong. and I do not care how you explain it.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I reclaim my time. It is a certainty that I and many other Americans may be asked to provide documentation that I again repeat is unconstitutional. I should have to give my name and my social security number. that is all that is required now for me to seek employment. but there are other areas of this bill about how they can go into a field. how about other areas of asylum. for example. There are many other areas of the bill that we have not covered because we have made it into a Hispanic thing. We have made it into a Hispanic thing and it is wrong that we should do that. I guess the media has made it into that. but there are other areas. I wish we had 2 more hours to discuss asylum and administrative law judges and appeals and many of the other areas of the bill that under the guise of reform are making it harsher and more difficult for a citizen to walk around his neighborhood. They even want to get local police. constables. and so on into the picture. Can you imagine someone in some remote part of this country seeing me walk at midnight from the bus station to a hotel. can you imagine how many times I would get stopped by the local constable or the local policeman If it were In an area where I would not be the norm?
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman Is correct and they will say till they are blue in the face. "No. this does not make an ID." There is the Glickman amendment. but the Simpson part of it says that the President has and should put in place a nonforgeable. I think is the word. ID card. To me. ID cards went out with Hitler and we won that war. I should not have to carry an ID card. They say. "Well. you have to carry a drivers license." That is a license. That is a privilege. You have to get a license to operate a store. You have to get a license here to be a vendor over on the Mall. That is a license.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am not saying that it will. What the gentleman from California is saying. and what I am saying. is that what Is in the back of the minds in the Simpson bill. when it says the President shall study. should come up with a nonforgeable identification. if you are not looking for it. we are saying that it could. it probably will if you adopt this. lead to that. because you are almost. you are almost forcing it. No. it does not say it in the bill. but it is leading to that.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

That is even more onerous. really. because then you are imposing only on the one who seeks employment. not the president of the corporation. not the bank president. but on the poor. little. old. migrant worker. He has to have an ID card. That is more unconstitutional than what I am talking about. You have made it worse.
Date: 1984-06-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Let me conclude. though. Where is the constituency? I have a letter from a labor group that endorses SimpsonMazzoll with qulifications. if we do this and that. I have another letter from another labor group that endorses it with qualifications. if we do this and that. Beyond that it is all negative. I do not find any constituency. The fact is that you cannot get away from the basic underlying reason. We must control our borders. we must secure our borders. From whom? From someone that is a foreign looking worker. Le.. me ask if there is any Member of Coniress and anyone here present thrt is not a descendent of an immigrant. of an alien. I would like to see him. All of us came from someplace. Our families came from someplace. some earlier. some later. I know that you cannot have unliraIted immigration. But you do not penalize the ones that are already here to keep the ones that you do not want. Underlying out there someplace. I regret to say it. and my heart aches when I say it. is they do not want black. they do not want Asian. they do not want Hispanic. they do not want someone that looks different. There is an underlying current of that throughout the country and I am not saying that this committee or any Member of this House would be involved in any of that. But that is where the constituency is. as I see it. because as I travel throughout the country all I am asked for by Norwegians. by Czechs. by Poles. by Russians. by Jews. is help me get my brother. help me get my relative. into this country. I always say that I will try. write me a letter under the normal procedures which you have established now. We are trying to circumvent that by saying that we have a flow of undocumented workers. Again. I am telling you. the flow is not going to stop by penalizing some employer in Kentucky or California or Indiana. You have to attack it back where it begins.