macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-09-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. the Small Business Association and the White House Conference on Small Business. as well as the American Chamber of Commerce. supports this amendment. It is ironic to me that we are opposing open government. when all we have heard this year is the angry feelings out there where people feel they do not have access to their government. I do not believe that this issue has been addressed in the bill. If it had been. we would not be considering this amendment. Small businesses will want access to their government. They are not asking for a handout. They simply want consideration. They do not want to be barred from submitting bids. It seems to me that the least we can do is protect our small business people and protect our taxpaying citizens and allow that their bids be considered. The goodoldboy network has worked for many years. not because it has been supported by the general public. but because they never had an opportunity to get in the door to prove that they can do adequate work. I think that -this amendment will do that.
Date: 1995-09-13
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. reclaiming my time. I would simply close by saying we owe it to our small businesses. we owe it to our general business community. to allow them access to their own government.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Thank you very much. Let me applaud you for being persistent about the right of voters in the various districts. In Texas. black citizens were not allowed to vote in the primary until 1944. and then they bought poll tax. and it was not until the early 1970s that we were allowed to register to vote without paying.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

No. it is a matter of record. We had to pay poll tax to vote and. then we had to go through a lot of intimidation. So we were delighted when the Voting Rights Act came in 1965. and for the first time in Texas. for the 1970 census. we were able to have an opportunity to have representation at State level as well as congressional level. The district that I occupy was supposed to come about after the 1970 census. But. indeed. it came 20 years later. The district that I represent is one -that is over one metropolitan area. and it is clear that the lines are a little jagged. not quite as jagged as District Six. I do not know the real difference. actually. except that mine is 45 percent black populated. and because of that it was declared unconstitutional. It is interesting.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I think the thing that troubles me the most about this is that we have heard statements from some that feel that they should not be represented by black people. That is clearly very interesting. since we have been represented by whites all of our history.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. I think the important thing is for those persons that we represent. we try very hard to be responsive. We answer mail. we visit. we answer questions. and we try to respond and vote to represent that majority.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I am sorry to say that very. very often. when I have voted for people. I did not get that responsiveness. I did not always get my letters answered. If I asked questions they did not like. I was avoided. That hag not happened with me. What about the other gentlewomen?
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I believe that one thing that I will always be known for is my responsiveness to all people without regard to color or age or gender. and I think my record is clear. As a matter of fact. I have not won with less than 73 percent of the vote. When I ran for the Texas House in 1972. I became the first black woman in the whole area ever elected to public office and I did not get any more opposition the whole time I held that office. When I ran for the Texas Senate. after my first race. I did not get any other opposition. So I must be pleasing a majority. I received 93 percent of the vote in my primary coming to the U.S. Congress. I believe that I am pleasing the majority. But there was one person who indicated that she did not want to live in that district and so she joined with the plaintiffs. I do not have a problem with that persons opinion. I have lived in districts that I did not want to live in. But I think it is called democracy. Democracy in this country is admired the world over. We have attempted to spread it throughout the world and it is a difficult form of government. It is probably the most expensive form. but it is the form that we all prefer. It is a form that we have respected. it is a form that we fought for. In every war. we have been a part of that. defending this Nation. We have been a part of law enforcement. We have been a part of teaching. I do not know a profession that we have not wanted to be. even before we could be. a part of. I believe that this country has promised all of its people one vote per person. and I do not think it eliminates us now. I realize that it did at one time. I believe that these districts are worth standing up for. I think they are worth fighting for. because we fought for freedom and this is all a part of it. It is clear that we have been dealt some negative blows. It is clear that we have all suffered race discrimination. it is clear that we continue to face those barriers. But I believe if we succumb to those barriers. we will be letting a lot of people down. We would be letting this country down because this countrys promise is not to have discriminatory practices. and we owe that as a responsibility to all of this Nations people. We need to get to know each other. because once we do. we will not have the same barriers as before we do. I believe that it has been educational for the persons that I represented to get to know me and for me to get to know them. That is really what makes a real understanding and acceptance. It is unfortunate that we have to go through this first. but can either of the gentlewomen name any institution that has not come through the growing pains? And. yes. this has been long. it has been hard. it has been heartbreaking. it has been disappointing. and it is hard to explain it to your children. it is hard to explain to your grandchildren. but we cannot give up.
Date: 1995-09-14
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

It is very ironic that gerrymandering never became an issue until they started to include us. Districts were drawn all kinds of ways. I happened to have chaired the State Senate redistricting committee for congressional districts. and all kinds of re.quests came in. They wanted to include their grandfathers burial site. their grandmothers birthplace. an army site. a certain street. and a little store that they visited in. But when it includes black voters. it becomes illegal.
Date: 1995-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

You know. I have done a lot of visiting as well. but I did not find anyone who felt that they were paying too little. Many of them are just barely getting by with the cost of it now because these. many of these people. are persons who worked some years ago. looking out for this day when they would be on a fixed income. They did not make that much money. and so even to say to them about the savings account is a joke because they do not have that money. They barely have enough to pay any copayment now. So. if it goes up any. it is simply eliminating care for them.
Date: 1995-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. let me tell you it means not being able to buy groceries for a month. or not being able to pay a light bill.. or some kind of energy or fuel bill. or doing without prescription medications. They do not have the money. and to get less normally means not having a choice of who their health care providers are. and we are talking about people who have been with the same physician for a number of years. and all of us know that the mental health and the mental state of one has more to do with the healing or as much to do with it as any medication. and. when you simply shift suddenly someone to another provider under the guise of getting cheaper care. then you actually getting much less because all decisions are removed. It is like all of a sudden these people have become just a number to shift away to someone. anybody. that will come by now and then write a prescription. or the gimmick now is not to write a prescription. but to send them to the overthecounter medications and just double the medicine so they would not have to have pay and they can afford it. It is a game. it is a gimmick. and it is totally unnecessary. If it was absolutely necessary to keep the system going. I think that people would try their best. as they would do anyway. to make it. But it is totally unnecessary because all of us know that this system is not in that kind of trouble. This is being done to the persons they consider powerless so that they can give this tax break to the wealthy. It is not fair to them. If we have been a part of paying into a system that has afforded the research. that afforded the ways to make the health status better and cause people to live longer. is this what they are looking forward to just because they live longer? Is a system who refuses to do what it has promised. the real contract that was made for persons who worked. paid into the system. and now that they need it. and perhaps live past 75. they are saying. "No more. Take it this way or no way at all." It is not fair to them.
Date: 1995-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

You know. another factor is that one of the ways that has been traditionally used to cut health care costs is early discharge from hospitals. And when we see early discharge. we also see people a little bit sicker going home. When they go home. they will need Meals on Wheels. they will need an aide perhaps coming in. Saving the Medicare dollar we would think would put a focus on how important it is not to cut Medicaid so severely. Medicaid takes care of the Meals on Wheels. it assists them in transportation for the handyrise to get to the doctors offices so they can remain at home and not be institutionalized. and it also provides for the Meals on Wheels. and often the only hot meal that the ones confined to their home get a day. But that too is being cut. All of us know that at least 67 to 70 percent of the Medicaid dollar goes for those senior citizens for longterm care. That is all a part of it. So. really. it is a gimmick. It is not a method to offer the care. It is a method to turn the care away. It is a gimmick to .force seniors out of hospital care. out of home care. just to say they are saving the program. This is not saving the program. To subject people to a system. the best health care in the world available. to not having it is not saving the system. It is simply ignoring the fact that almost 20 percent of this population needs this care on a daytoday basis. and they have said we do not need this population to get these dollars. we must give it to the rich. Those are the ones that are more likely to show that they are getting it. It is not popular. it seems. to help the poor. to help the elderly. to help the shutin. It is much more popular to say I promised a tax cut to the wealthy and I am going to deliver it. I do not think this is America.
Date: 1995-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman would yield for just a moment. With all we heard from our constituents. and from my experience of knowing what has happened. why is it we cannot be heard here? I understand there is going to be 1 day of hearings to dismantle a program that many thousands of people have paid into the system for them to have available health care at the time at which they retire and are no longer able to work. In 1 day the dismantling will occur. We have had weeks of hearings on Waco. and Ruby Ridge.
Date: 1995-09-18
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I do not think they know about it. From what I understand. they do not even know about it.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank my ranking member. I have a particular concern about this bill. but I voted for it as it came out of committee. This bill makes dramatic steps in streamlining over 80 training programs and education programs. I believe almost every Member on both sides of our aisle wants the consolidation of these programs. . I support the bill. as I said. when it came out of committee. with some reservations. This is probably the most bipartisan bill I have seen out of our Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities this year. However. the point of departure from that support is that there are no guarantees or assurances that people who have a history of being left out will continue to be served. Later today I will offer an amendment to title V of the bill. As it now stands. this bill threatens to undermine our existing State vocational rehab systems. I believe we can correct this problem with a bipartisan amendment. We are trying to work on it right now. but so far we are not there. The bill has been changed three times since it came .out of our committee. In the last 10 days. there have been some changes. In fact. I know in the managers amendment in a few minutes there are some suggested changes on voc rehab. but* it does not go far enough. It does not go far to make sure that those people who particularly high cost vocational rehab recipients need those benefits and that revenues stream directly to them. not that it be siphoned off for some other program or some other proposal that an. individual Governor has. I was glad to hear my colleague. the gentleman from California . talk about that there is going to be a legislative involvement in that. That is not in the managers amendment. It may be when it comes up on the floor in a few minutes. I am glad there is an effort to do that. But. again. this bill has been out of committee for at least 2 months and has not changed until today to add the legislative involvement with the Governor. There are a great many provisions in the managers amendment on voc rehab that concern me. It does not contain a mechanism for the State to control the quality and appropriateness of vocational rehab in local centers. This bill does not allow the States. and possibly a Governor could make this determination. that the local centers for vocational rehab would not be subject to quality and appropriateness of States services on a statewide basis. It would allow the local work force development board. whose members are not required to know anything about vocational rehab or the needs of the people. to provide guidance providing vocational rehab services. There is a great deal wrong with this bill on vocational rehab. If this bill passes. the Senate actually is the best issue. it leaves vocational rehab the way it is dealing with those people who hgave been served by a number of States. including Texas. a great deal for many years.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman. our chairman of the committee. and he is our chairman. mentioned that the Governors could not siphon this off. but I am looking at an amendment that would be part of the managers amendment that allows the Government to appoint a board and develop a proposed plan for alternatives. States have traditionally provided for vocational rehab. In the State of Texas. in the State of South Carolina and a number of States. they have provided for it. The Federal funding is very limited. This amendment would allow for the Governor in an individual case. maybe if we include the legislature. to come in. but these decisions have already been made locally and would allow the Governor to create and have another revenue stream of Federal funding to do something else without necessarily going back to the legislature. If we want this to be a local control issue. we should give it to the legislature and the Governor to provide it by State law. instead of what is trying to be done in this amendment. There have been some allegations and concerns about who we represent when we work here on the floor. I have served 20 years in the legislature and worked with lots of not only provider groups. but recipients of vocational rehab services. They are the ones that are our big concern. that we deal with today. not with somebodys job in the State bureaucracy. I would hope that this bill. whether we do it here on the floor and adopt the Green amendment. or we do it in the conference committee and the Senate will hold firm on making sure vocational rehab does not get lost in a CAREERS reform bill.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will continue to yield. I do not know the background to it. but I know it is on National Governors Association stationery and your Governor is at the top of this. In fact. we heard your Governor a great many times in our committee this year. Again. this letter is dated today. September 19. and it is the best available information I have and the most reliable on the National Governors Association. If they have problems with their executive director. they may want to talk with him.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I will not object to the gentlemans having more time as long as I can respond. I understand we may have a duel of letters here. one dated today. this afternoon. and maybe one later. but the concern I have is to whether the Governors are for or against it. I have just been told that the Governor of Texas. Governor Bush. is supporting the amendment. I know he does not represent the National Governors Association but he is really concerned about including vocational rehabilitation in this bill. That is why I want vocational rehabilitation to be part of the onestop center.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I stand in strong support of the Green amendment. H.R. 1617 H9206 is a good bill in almost all respects. It is a major step forward in our effort to try to make government more responsive to the needs of people. our efforts to streamline it. to save money and make it work for people who want to get to work. who need the skills that this bill will help them secure. There is a piece of the billthat should not be in it and that is why I rise in support of the Green amendment. Mr. Chairman. the Green amendment would make clear that this bill does not have any effect on any program that is in place under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I know I speak for many people in the Congress when I say that we applaud the work of the chairman of the committee. applaud the work of the committee staff that worked so hard to bring this bill about. and it is not an effort to take away from the overall direction of the bill to lift this one piece out of it. I have worked with people in the disability community in my area and they are very concerned that this provision is going to be counterproductive. The public vocational rehabilitation program has put already over 13 million people back to work. It is the most successful job training program in the world for disabled. It more than pays for itself. because it takes people who want to work and help themselves and puts them back in the work force. It is a highly specialized process and does not fit in the CAREERS bill. It offers a broad range of services individually tailored to meet the needs of the disabled. and it is a great success story in and of itself. Where there is tremendous need for reform in so many other areas of the vocational training. this is an area that is a success. I do not think we should take a chance on compromising a program that already works in an effort to try to achieve economies of scale that I do not think would accrue to the benefit of this program. So I urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment. I commend my colleague from Texas for his hard work in this area. and once again commend the sponsors of this bill for putting it together. This is a piece of it that needs to be deleted. Mr. Chairman. I urge Members to support the Green amendment. and make sure this bill does not compromise great programs that are helping people that need the help. who want a helping hand and not a handout. I urge my colleagues to support the Green amendment.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. another colleague of ours wants to join me. I would like to answer our chairmans concern about the current system. He thinks that the sponsors claim the current system is so bad anything is preferable. not this bill. With that. I know our colleague from Massachusetts has to go to another markup.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I was interested in hearing the gentleman from California . I know we share the concern and support for the overall bill but not for this amendment. You cannot put a rateofreturn requirement or a costbenefit analysis requirement on vocational rehab services. It costs more to train and educate someone who needs those services than someone who is laid off because of a job. Let us talk about the program. Let me respond a little bit to our chairman when he talked about the failure of the current program. We had 1992 amendments that increased the number of persons with disabilities eligible for the services. The agency case loads have risen significantly. Most of those new participants are persons with severe disabilities. In 1993. the year of the GAO study. when these changes were being phased in. the number and percentage of successful cases closed dipped. The Republicans are now trying to use this statistic to junk the whole system and to talk about how bad it is. It has been serving people for 70 years. and 13 million people have found jobs under the current vocational rehab system. Let us not throw it out and just call for reform. Let me talk about the GAO study that justifies their attacks. What they do not tell us is that the GAO overall assessment of the rehab program was positive. For every $1 invested in the current programs. it generates $18 in the form of reduced disabilities payments and taxes paid by these participants who obtain employment. whether it is 60 days and they have to come back to be retrained or a year. we are getting an $18 to $1 return. The earnings of persons with disabilities who participate in the program are four times greater than those who did not. I would like to see it eight times greater. but let us not trash the current system just because they do not like something. We cannot put costbenefit analysis when we are dealing with disabled people. because we need to make sure we provide that service whether it is costeffective or not.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

in eliminating this provision and accepting the fact that we have a responsibility to ensure an even playing field and to make sure now that 13 million people are at work. that more people who are physically and mentally challenged and the children who need to be trained can also come up and be trained under the right rehabilitation system.