macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the amendment Chairman MILLER Is offering on behalf of Congressman EN! FALEOMAVAEGA. who represents .American Samoa in the Congress. The amendment Is substantively the same as an amendment I sponsored to H.R. 3596. which was approved by the Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs. which I chair. The original bill Itself was introduced by Congressman FALEOMAVAEGA. The gentleman from American Samoa is to be highly commended for developing this proposal. Its implementation will be of significant benefit to some 3.7 million Americans who live in the U.S. insular areas of American Samoa. Guam. the Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico. and my own Virgin Islands. The amendment directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the longterm water. sewer. and power supply needs of the U.S. insular areas. It would address serious deficiencies In the systems that serve these Americans who do not live on the mainland. deficiencies that pose health hazards. impede economic growth and seriously detract from the quality of life that most Americans take for granted. The need for a comprehensive examination of these systems Is long overdue. Again. I applaud Congressman FALEOMAVAEOGA in Initiating this effort. I thank Congressman LAGoMARSINO. the ranking Republican on my subcommittee for his support of this legislation. and I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman MILLER for taking this action today. Passage of this amendment will hopefully bring an end to the piecemeal approach with which insular areas over the years have had to cope. In providing for consultation with the insular govemments In developing the recommendations. it ensures that those who are most knowledgeable about the needs of the islands will be major participants in the project. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I find myself in a very awkward situation and somewhat saddened by some of the events of today. One Is that my two dear friends. who I admire and respect exceedingly. the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. GsjiaENSON]. are wellintentioned and good and able and dedicated Members of this Congress. I respect their philosophy. their Ideology. and the rest of what they try and do here today. Unfortunately. the drafting of the amendments gives me some degree of concern. and I would hope. and I apologize for not having had the time to really work with them to arrive at the thrust of their concerns. which I share. My problem was that we were involved with the drafting of the farm bill. We finished at 2:30 this morning. and all week and the preceding week we have been involved. The problem that arises here is that we have a misconception with subsidy and double subsidy. One of the amendments that I will offer later has. yes. the Bureau of Reclamation in the western areas of our country have received water that Is paid by taxpayer dollars. But. so have all the other areas of our country. So has the Northeast. so has the Midwest. all the dams on the river. all the transportation on the rivers. that is basically the channeling of the rivers for transportation. that is basically taxpayers money. The Amtrak. Metro. everything in the major cities that comes from taxpayers from my area.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The gentleman is correct. because I do not know how to say It. but sometimes we act from a headline or a TV program. and we saw. as an example. we saw the mounds of cheese and the powdered milk. and we acted because people. wellintentioned and good science. said that this is not permissible. We should not be doing this with the taxpayers money. So we did. we acted. Very efficiently. Now we do not have the cheese. Now we do not have the powdered milk. Now. in California and Los Angeles. my good and dear friend. Mr. MniL". they are talking about increasing the price of the school lunch for the poor kids the gentleman works with. talking about reducing the participants in the WIC program we work so efficiently. Why? Because this House forced Members to reduce the surplus. Now we have no surplus. Now we have a problem with no commodity. and now we all add to the cost of the school lunch program. and this is what I am afraid that this can do. What are we doing here?
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank my distinguished colleague. and I appreciate his generosity in accepting this amendment. It is a minimal effort to try to bring some equity to the situation. I hope that we can discuss the other amendment.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I take this extra time not to discuss the amendment but to discuss the overall situation. because that is part of the program that we have for agriculture. so that we have a balance and we do not have a surplus in I year and a scarcity the next year. I am not here defending the big guys or anything like that. but the subsidy for the vegetable grower in California. I admit. is there. and the water for the vegetable grower in California is there. but that is transferred all the way to Connecticut to the consumer. It follows the vegetable all the way to the consumer. Mr. Chairman. if I might Just continue. let me show something here that I think should be of importance to the overall situation. because we will be having a farm bill on the floor and we will get the same argument. that It costs. and it costs. We have heard it said earlier that the American people are the best fed people in the world for the least amount of disposal income per family. The American people are the best fed of all the major industrialized countries of the world. Part of the reason for that is because there has been Federal involvement. there has been a Federal program. What is the cost? Well. if I might show the Members this. the red which they see in this chart is the total Federal budget: $1.23 billion. If we can see the little line at the bottom there. this is what the commodities support program costs. sixtenths of 1 percent. So we are in the best fed people. With the bounty of America. if there is any subsidy. it is that the American consumer is being subsidized on the back of the American farmer. Every day people should rise and thank the good Lord because we have farmers who are willing to work to provide Gods children with food. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentlemans accepting this amendment. and hopefully we can work on the other amendment.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. let me tell my distinguished friend. the gentleman from Connecticut. that I cannot speak for the Bureau of Reclamation. but I can speak for myself and I can speak as chairman of the committee. At nc time would I Intentionally in any way disturb the commitment that I am making to my friends here at this point.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I offer my amendment No. 6. and I ask unanimous consent that my two amendments be considered en bloc.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will yield. that is the exclusion amendment. The gentleman is referring to the smaller amendment. amendment No. 6?
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Yes. This amendment is offered to meet the objections or the concerns of the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Grains and also some of my concerns. that even though you are receiving the water. if you are involved in the production of nonprogrammed commodities. the vegetables. for example. that are not in an acreage reduction program. then this will not apply to those products.
Date: 1990-06-14
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the committee has developed a good and reasonable farm bill for farmers and consumers. Just as Important. it Is a farm bill that recognizes the need to be fiscally responsible. The committeeapproved farm bill continues to provide a reasonable safety net for farm income while recognizing the budget constraints our Nation faces. The bill keeps our farm products priced competitively and will prevent the buildup ofcostly government surpluses. It also contains measures to make our agricultural programs work more effectively. it gives farmers more flexibility to plant according to market signals. t provides authority for expanded flood safety research. and It allows for modest increases in our domestic food assistance programs. I am particularly proud of the committees conservation package. We have developed a conservation title that balances our agriculturat production needs with our environmental quality goals. While the interests of agriculture and the environmental community are often portrayed as being antihetical. this conservation title shows that they are not. The major provisions of the conservation package have the support of leading agricultural groups and environmental organizations. This farm bill proposal is vital to maintaining the economic health of U.S. agriculture. Its also essential to keep safe. reliable. and affordable foods available to the American people. This is a farm bill that I will be proud to defend on the House floor and it is one that deserves the support of my House colleagues.
Date: 1990-06-18
Speaker: W ILLIAMS (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker. I would remind the gentleman again that no college. no university in America has had the 15 years of internship effort success that the Washington Center has had. Did we select out the University of Montana In my own State? Yes. Frankly. would the money be as well spent as It will on the Washington Center? No. Did we select out the University of Illinois? Yes. Will the Federal tax money be as well spent as It would be on this center which has such a fine track record? I think the answer is no. In closing Mr. Speaker. let me note that. yes. this is $12 million. Yes. we have a Federal budget deficit. Yes. this Is a pivate center. and so this is one of those times when the Members of this House. and eventualty the President. Is going to have an opportunity once again to decide whether or not It s In the national interest to have internships being provided to Americas colleges and university students. Internships by the thousands. and whetheritt is in the best Interests of this Nation to have some of those interns come to this city and to go through a coordinated program that has a proven record of expertise. and if we believe it Is. then we have to ask ourselves whether or not those students deserve some national help. and inasmuch as their interest Is In the national interest. For my part. I believe those students do deserve this help. I believe their families deserve this help. I believe the colleges and universities that send them here support this help. and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation by voting aye.
Date: 1990-06-19
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman. I rise to seek clarification from the subcommittee chairman. the gentleman from Alabama. regarding section 305 of the bill. which requires the Secretary of Energy to use the Army Corps of Engineers to "manage and carry out the environmental remediation activities and restoration" of the Hanford. WA. sites. The Hanford Reservation is comprised of four Superfund sites on the Environmental Protection Agencys national priorities list. It is my understanding that the language in section 305 is not intended to modify or affect in any way the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980. Further. I understand that section 305 is not Intended to change the roles and responsibilities of EPA. the State of Washington. and the Department of Energy as set forth in the RCRA and CERCLA statutes with regard to response actions at Hanford. Additionally. I understand that the language of section 305 is not Intended to alter or change any of the provisions or requirements set forth in the interagency agreement that has already been entered into by the EPA. the State of Washington. and the Department of Energy for cleanup and corrective action on the Hanford Reservation. I would appreciate the gentleman from Alabamas response as to whether my understanding of the intent of section 305 is correct.
Date: 1990-06-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. last Wednesday the House Committee on Agriculture adopted a wideranging package of conservation and environmental protection measures as part of the 1990 farm bill we will bring to the House floor in July. I am proud to say this is probably the most forward looking and ambitious effort the committee has ever put forward to protect our natural resources in the history of farm legislation. The 1985 farm bill initiated several programs to protect farm resources by curbing soil erosion. limiting the destruction of wetlands. and minimizing crop production on sensitive lands. The Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990the 1990 farm billbuilds upon the success of the 1985 act by strengthening and broadening agricultures commitment to protect our natural heritage. The provisions in our bill set reasonable standards for the protection of our valuable wetlands. USDA is directed to map agricultural wetlands to help farmers know what areas to protect Producers are afforded the option of mitigating wetland losses by reestablishing wetlands of equal value to those affected by agriculture. In addition. USDA is directed to weigh the effects of a wetland loss in penalizing farmers and authorized to reduce a portion of a producers farm program benefits for inadvertent wetland coversions. rather than threatening a complete cutoff of support. Our conservation proposal places a strong emphasis on the protection of ground water and surface water from possible pollution caused by agricultural practices. The committee package includes innovative incentive programs and longterm easement options to encourage farmers to protect water quality. wetlands. wildlife habitat. and to voluntarily adopt environmentally sound farming practices. We continue the very successful conservation reserve program and redirect its focus to the enrollment of environmentally sensititive lands. In addition. we establish an innovative wetland and environmental easement program to promote the permanent protection of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. A 2.5millionacre National Agricultural Wetlands Reserve would serve as the H 38X") foundation for a network of permanently protected wetlands nationwide. We also establish an Office of Environmental Quality In USDA to monitor the impacts of agricultural programs on the environment and coordinate efforts to improve environmental quality. This is a conservation and environmental package that s good for agriculture and good for the environment. It would not have been possible without the support of our Nations leading agricultural and environmental organizations for its key provisions. I deeply appreciate their help and support in developing this final product. Madam Speaker. I commend all my committee colleagues for their contributions to the development of this package of conservation and environmental measures during several Intense weeks of negotiations. This is sound and realistic legislation that Members of the House who share our concern about the environment and agriculture can strongly support.
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to improve Environmental Protection Agency data collection and dissemination regarding reduction of toxic chemical emissions across all media. to assist States in providing information and technical assistance about source reduction. and for other purposes. as amended.
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. lems. Speaker. I yield 6 minutes to the gen- Basically. this bill is. as the gentletleman form Michigan . man from Iowa just said the author of the legislation. a moment ago. nonregulatory ap-
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 1457. the bill Just passed.
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill to amend the Rail Passenger Service Act to authorize appropriations for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. and for other purposes.
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I include at this point in the RECORD correspondence from the chairmen of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation regarding jurisdictional matters associated with this legislation.
Date: 1990-06-25
Speaker: THOMAS A. LUKEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R. 5075. the bill just passed.
Date: 1990-06-28
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that the House Committee on Agriculture may have until 6 p.m. Tuesday. July 3. to file the report on H.R. 3950. the Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990.
Date: 1990-07-11
Speaker: REPORT CARD (democrat)
Chamber: H

TRENDS L"SinA badlyut ecno WMnu Aaadre -an" ges. Mmac tuft WW. 1mng C raIreehba of m time ye melucmh Mm- e Deacs and Diagnostn-. MOOS Data S qe Hig airm a n i ........ edicatl Devices and Diagm sti h ie. wS empaie tht ecnloicfe vemn ismc1oeta uta kmu . unite dvd awitn an r roertmi ancad So tu Daes Sw Tectautog. t eeltheit ratical p intellgen f With todays bilteienceCo. mHfusen cmpetiivnes Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
Date: 1990-07-13
Speaker: DR LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. the Committee on Agriculture has finished deliberations on the farm bill. There are still some Members that will try and conceivably make it a better bill by the time we get to the floor. In the meantime. Mr. Speaker. we worked on the budget. We think we have good legislation. This morning the Washington Post had what I consider a very perceptive Idea on what the farm bill is. what we Intend to do and some of the peripheral attacks that have been launched by Members. and I would invite my colleagues to read that editorial and. hopefully. see the need that we have for farm legislation and how in a very responsible way the Committee on Agriculture has addressed the Issue. Tnm rw A FAaM Buz U.S. farm supports were too high for ayones good in the mid1980s. In the last five years they have already been appreciably and constructively reduced. Now the Bush administration wants to reduce them further as part of a reduction in world supports generally. Yet presumably its goal is not to eliminate supports entirely: a safety net and reserve program of some kind remain necessary for consumers sake as well as producers. The question is. where is the stopping point? What should the next generation of farm programs look like. If not like what exists today? On that there s no agreement. It Is in that context that the 1985 farm bill is expiring and Congress Is having to write a new ome this year. Left to themselves. the agriculture eommittees would like supports to go up in an election year. Trade policy and. closer to home. the budget summit could both force them down instead. The committees. after some early bluster for the folks back home. have basically settled on a policy of holding on to what they have. Most supports would be frozen. over the fiveyear life of the bill. this would mean they would continue to decline In real terms. Critics of the programs are playing mainly around the edges. The blatantly protection1st sugar program. the semifeudal peanut program. the vestigial honey programthose are among their targets. All three richly deserve to be revised if not expunged. but they are peripheral to the grain supports on which farm and food policy mainly depend. There the proposals will be aimed at excess. instead of the largest payments to the largest and presumably least needy Matter set in this 4teface indicates words inserted or appended. rather than spoken. by a Member of the House on the floor. farmers. the amenders would either. limit payments per farmer or confine supports to smaller producers. somehow defined. Thats an old and popular idea. except that farm supports are not Just meant to assuage need in the farm belt. Its fine to say these programs should cost less. they should. But the president and Congress also need to take the harder next step of figuring out Just what levels of food supply and price they want these programs to provide.
Date: 1990-07-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman. I have no disagreement with the gentleman. I know of his continuous interest and dedication in this area. and I am happy to hear from him that he would be agreeable for us to continue trying to reach a viable. as nearly economically sound as possible. program.
Date: 1990-07-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield at this point to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. the gentleman from Oklahoma who has been working very diligently in this area.
Date: 1990-07-18
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma . and let me say that basically the gentleman is correct. I would like to send a signal from the Legislative Committee that we know there is a problem and we are studying the problem. We do not want the signal to go from here saying that this is it and there would be no safety net. that we would not allow the producers the necessary tools. because basically it has become a part of the production credit needs of the individual producers. those in Mississippi and Texas and Iowa and Nebraska. and unless we send the necessary signals. there will be a problem and we know it is a problem But we will see to it that we come up with a viable working alternative. I am happy to hear the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations say that he would work with us in this respect. Hopefully we will be able. before the process is finished with this legislation. to have necessary legislation introduced.