macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1996-05-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this partially open rule. not in the effect that it has on the bill that affects small business and the tax cuts but the effect the rule has on the minimum wage bill. After months of Democratic attempts to have a vote on raising the minimum wage. the House Republican leaders have at last allowed us a vote. This minimum wage bill. though. let me point out to the chairman of the Committee on Rules. nver had a hearing in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. even though you gave credit to it earlier. we never had a public hearing. never had a vote on this bill. So now it is out here today but without having the committee hear the bill. We should not be fooled by this sham of a bill. This could be April Fools for the American workers. Now you see the wage increased. but now you do not. House Republicans have attached special interest provisions to exempt millions of people from the minimum wage. Now you see it. now you do not. Working American families expect a clean upanddown vote on a minimum wage increase. including those that are covered today. but not taking millions out of protections for minimum wage. Instead. they are caving in to the special interest groups. The restaurant lobby. they get to freeze their minimum wage for tip workers. There is a training wage. We have heard this before. In 1990. there was an experiment with the training wage. It did not work. It did not work then and it will not work now. Also the amendment to exempt millions of workers who will lose minimum wage and fair labor standard protections. American families are working harder. We see the disparity in the income. The rich are getting richer. and we are trying to keep the poor from getting poorer but not with this bill. It is tough to get ahead when you cannot make enough money in your pockets to put food on you table. This minimum wage legislation began in 1938 with 25 cents an hour. I have to admit that if it had taken the Republican votes to increase it over the years. we would not have had any increases. I ask my colleagues not to allow millions of working American families who now earn $4.25 an hour to say. well. I am going to get an increase. No. you are not. not if you work in a business that earns less than $500.000. Do not give it to them with one hand and take it away with another.
Date: 1996-05-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. our chairman is correct that we are debating H.R. 1227. That is the vehicle that is being used tonight and tomorrow to debate the minimum wage increase. After months of blocking Democratic attempts to vote on raising the minimum wage. Republicans have finally allowed a vote on the issue. But this move is not really intended to help those hardworking Americans. Republicans will attach this minimum wage increase to a proposal that is nothing but an attempt to satisfy special interest groups who join them in the monthslong battle against raising the minimum wage. The 80 percent of the American people who support a minimum wage need to know that the legislative vehicle that is being used today will exempt millions of hardworking people from the minimum wage and overtime pay. That is right. over 10 million people will not be eligible for a minimum wage increase. This is the Washington way of giving it to you with one hand and taking it away with the other. Mr. Speaker. it is obvious that the Republicans really have no interest in providing working Americans the opportunity of a living wage. We should not allow this sham. this gimmick. this fraud on these lowest paid hardworking American workers. Republicans do not care that the minimum wage has been on a fairly steady decline for the past 15 years. Today the minimum wage has fallen 45 cents in real value since the last increase in 1991. Five years ago there was the last minimum wage increase. and yet we have not seen an increase. and now we see this sham tonight. Americans know that the real families exist on the minimum wage. It is hard to get by. when working full time does not even put enough money to stay off welfare. You have to earn money in your pocketbook to put food on the table. That is why Americans. 80 percent support an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans have a golden opportunity to give these hardworking Americans a clean minimum wage increase. but not if we adopt the Goodling amendment. Mr. Speaker. I hope that we will have a clean minimum wage increase that will give these hardworking people an increase without exempting 10 million people from the minimum wage and also from the overtime protections that they have now.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. speaker. I want to applaud my colleague from California because I agree that a minimum wage should have been with the welfare reform bill. If we want to get people off welfare. we have to provide them with a decent minimum wage. Right now in our country if a person works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year. they make $8.800. They are eligible for food stamps. welfare. whatever it is called. That is why it should have been part of it. The bills that were sent to the President by this Republican Congress did not have the minimum wage increase in it. It should have been part of the welfare reform bill but it was not. That is not the fault on this side of the aisle. It is the other side. That is why it should be part. I agree with my colleague from California. A minimum wage increase should be part of a welfare reform bill. The minimum wage increase passed the last time in 1991 with 135 Republicans in the House supporting it. I think that is ironic because we had a Democratic majority in the House and a Republican President that passed the minimum wage increase. Now we have a Democratic President and a Republican majority in the House and the Senate and yet we have waited for 2 months to try and have a vote on the floor today. What do we have? We have a vote on a bill and an amendment. the bill that has portability which itself could stand alone and be debated. in fact we could probably pass it with some fairness in the portability bill. but. no. we are going to attach a minimum wage increase to it that is going to take away millions of people from coverage under the minimum wage. We are giving it with one hand and we are going to take it away with the other. That is what the people of the United States have said in 1992 and 1994. They do not want Washington practicing sleight of hand. They want Washington to be upfront and honest with the American people. By withdrawing the coverage of minimum wage from these interstate small businesses. we are actually lowering the coverage to over 10 million people. That is what is wrong with this bill and the amendment. and that is why when it goes to the Senate. hopefully they will change that if we do not beat it today. The minimum wage increase passed in 1991 with bipartisan support. Hopefully we will have that again. but it needs to be a real minimum wage increase and not a fake one.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. my good friend. the gentleman from North Carolina. may want to know that if we pass a minimum wage increase that 345.000 workers in North Carolina will see an increase in their wage. That is a pretty good tradeoff if those jobs are really lost. but I do not think they will be.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. my good friend from Sugarland. TX knows that in Texas 1.100.000 people will get a minimum wage increase. He knows why the President did not increase the minimum wage. We were trying to provide health care. and we could not do both on small businesses. Since health care reform did not pass. now we have to try a minimum wage increase.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin. who serves on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. would actually see an increase of 210.000 workers who would see a pay increase if we pass the Riggs amendment.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. let me point out to my colleague from Arkansas that over 50 percent of the people over 25 will receive a minimum wage increase. In fact. in the State of Arkansas 158.000 workers will see a minimum wage increase if this bill is passed and the Riggs amendment is passed.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. to my colleague from South Carolina. South Carolina would see an increase of 196.000 workers who would see a pay increase. That is a pretty good size football stadium.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. to my colleague from California. 1.3 million workers will see a pay increase if the minimum wage is passed. The gentlemans quote from U.S. News and World Report is straight out of Adam Smith. but it is more like the Addams Family.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I thank the ranking member on my committee for yielding the time. The gentleman from Colorado is honest about opposing a minimum wage. but in Colorado 145.000 workers will see a pay increase if the Riggs amendment is adopted.
Date: 1996-05-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. in the State of Michigan. 420.000 workers would see an increase in the minimum wage. And I would say to my colleague who just spoke. he knows that in 1993 and 1994 we were working on health care and not a minimum wage to try to provide for raising the standard of living. and that is why minimum wage was not increased in 1993 and 1994.
Date: 1996-05-29
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. as we consider the merits of H.R. 3322. the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization for 1996. one large portion of the bill is noticeably absent. Members interested in the authorization levels for the Department of Energys programs will not find a title authorizing those programs in this legislation. Although programs relating to conservation. renewable energy sources and fossil energy are of obvious importance to the Nation. they will not be considered as a part of this omnibus bill. Under the language of the omnibus science bill considered during the last budget cycle. the authorizations for DOE programs for this fiscal year were included. This was accomplished through an amendment offered by Chairman WALKER and agreed to by the full House by a voice vote. It is unfortunate that the House will not have the opportunity to set policy guidelines for the Department of Energy through this bill. A separate bill dealing with DOE is scheduled for subcommittee considerations. but I suspect that the full committee will never see the legislation. nor will the House as a whole. I find this process objectionable. With regard to the language of the bill that is before us. I will be supporting an amendment offered by Mr. TANNER and myself to provide authorization to the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. These programs. which assist American companies in bringing new technologies to the marketplace. are critical for our economic development. Although the Science Committee leadership has been opposed to these programs in the past. calling them corporate welfare. the appropriators. and the Senate. have seen fit to fund both the ATP and the MEP. Many on the Republican side of the aisle have expressed their support for these programs. as a fine example of governmentindustry partnerships which help America stay competitive. Our overseas competitors have been continuing their investment in new technology. while America has moved away from this critical part of our economy. Large corporations which must constantly please stockholders are preoccupied with the bottom line. and are slow to invest in highrisk technology which can often have longterm rewards. Small businesses often do not have the necessary capital to invest in highrisk technologies. The ATP and the MEP are programs which assist both large and small companies with highrisk investment. The ATP. for example. is a program which has assisted many small businesses with new technology. Fortysix percent of ATP awards have gone to small businesses. or to joint ventures led by a small business. Publicprivate partnerships are a viable and effective way to keep America competitive in the global economy. and our support of the ATP and MEP is one way for this Congress to assist American business in the global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. and I yield back the balance of my time.
Date: 1996-05-29
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Brown substitute. Unlike the underlying bill. the amendment authorizes the energy program of the Department of Energy at appropriate levels for 1997. Last years authorization bill contained a 2year authorization for the Department of Energy. and the bill before us today makes no mention of these programs. That leaves us with the authorization levels from last years bill. and that is not good policy. Mr. Chairman. by allowing these authorization levels to stand. we are giving away our responsibility to provide program directions. The amendment makes the tough choices we need to fund energy programs. Fossil energy programs are scaled back while the overall level for energy R&D is funded at a higher level than the House budget resolution. The amendment provides full funding for fusion energy research and development on a bipartisan basis. Over 65 Members of the House signed letters to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Louisiana . requesting full funding of these programs. The amendment also enhances basic research at the Department of Energy. This amendment provides almost $60 million more for high energy and nuclear physics research than the current authorization levels. The amendment also provides full funding for such crucial programs as the Environmental Technologies Initiative. the U.S. Global Change Research Program. and highperformance computing programs at the Department of Energy. These sensible authorization levels do not bust the budget. The figures of the Brown substitute are consistent with a balanced budget by year 2002 as presented by both the President and the Coalition. the blue dogs budget. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for a reasonable energy policy.
Date: 1996-05-29
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I join Dallas. the State of Texas. and the Nation in expressing my profound sympathy for the loss of a world leader. Mr. Jerry Junkins. president of Texas Instruments. who died. untimely. of a heart attack while traveling in Europe. Mr. Junkins is well known throughout Texas. the Nation. and the world. He was a leader in trade policies. a leader in support of education. a leader in support of publicprivate partnerships and the creation of jobs. and a real leader in giving minority businesspeople opportunities. A very untimely death. Mr. Speaker. with great sadness. I rise to pay special tribute to a good friend. and a remarkable individual who has distinguished himself by his exceptional contributions to the Dallas business community. Mr. Jerry R. Junkins. the Chairman. president and CEO of Texas Instruments. passed away from a heart attack while on a business trip in Germany. He was 58. Jerry Junkins will be remembered for his many contributions in the international. national and state arenas. particularly as a leader in pushing for global trade expansion for the U.S. But for those of us in Dallas. he will be remembered as a champion for our community. He was a champion of early childhood education. especially for TIs support of the Margaret H. Cone Model Head Start Center.. For many years. he chaired the Dallas Citizens Council Education Committee. He was a guardian angel for Paul Quinn College. and he was the inspiration behind the TI Minority Business Development Program which grew to over $120 million in a very short time. Jerry Junkins joined Texas Instruments in 1959. and worked his way to its top position of president and CEO in 1985. He became chairman in 1988. Jerry Junkins served in a broad range of civic and industrial positions in Dallas. including: Member of the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University. and Member of the Board of Directors of Caterpillar Inc.. The Procter & Gamble Company. anc 3M. He was also a member of the Business Council. cochairman of The Business Roundtable. and chairman of its International Trade and Investment Task Force. Mr. Speaker. all of Dallas and the State of Texas grieve for Jerry Junkins wife. Sally. his daughters Kirsten and Karen. his parents. and his brothers and sisters. Mr. Junkins was an extraordinary leader. an exemplary businessman. and a highly respected national and community leaders. He inspired those he worked with. won the devotion of his friends. and earned the gratitude of his Nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Jerry Junkins.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the Republican majority is still relying on Medicare cuts to pay for its tax breaks and its special deals for its friends. They have wisely come down from their demands of last year in cutting Medicare $270 billion and last year they offered a $245 billion tax break. Their plan now for the next 6 years still contains Medicare cuts. These cuts would allow health care plans to charge seniors substantially more and reduce the seniors choice of health care plans by pushing more seniors into managed care. Costs for seniors in the traditional Medicare would increase. We need to reform Medicare but the Republicans take too much bite out of the apple. We need to reform the program by investing more into the waste. fraud and abuse investigations. Nearly $40 million has been recouped by the Medicare trust fund because of actions of this administration. We need to fully fund waste. fraud and abuse investigations and reform the trust fund along the lines recommended by the trustees. We do not need to cut Medicare just to pay for tax breaks.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. my concern is not whether or not we bust the budget. My concern is not that we are cutting the budget. it is how we are cutting the budget. It does not add up when we say we are protecting the personnel and we take away all their tools. It does not do anything but cause for more inefficiency. It is a problem being created by this amendment of Mr. WELDONs. and that is why I think that the more sensible way is with the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I think that we need to coordinate the real basic needs for what travel it is and look at those figures rather than deciding we just want to slash something.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania can make a simplistic argument like that. and it might sound like it makes sense. but it does not make sense unless the gentleman can relate it to reality. relate it to basic needs of a program. We can all pay with numbers. But unless those numbers make sense in reality. we are wasting other dollars.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I am saying exactly what it would cut. If the gentleman would tell me exactly what the dollars he is talking about would pay for. then we can relate. But I am talking about cutting essential travel to carry out the duty of NASA.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I think we ought to look back in that testimony and see. I do not know that they can do it with $31 million. It might not make sense. I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania ought to be the one explaining to me why they can make all these trips with $31 million rather than talking about and trying to excite the public.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. let me talk about the JacksonLee amendment for a few minutes. and I think the Members who are here and who are watching it now realize that we are talking about authorization bill here. The Committee on Appropriations has already appropriated $600 million more than this bill authorizes. and what we are trying to do with my colleagues from Houston. Ms. JACKSONLEEs amendment. is to provide $81.5 million in additional authorization to make sure we do not have as much as 3 weeks furlough of the employees there. That is really not a way to run a government. a business. or an airline. or a railroad. or anything else where we plan to authorize less than what we are going to spend so we can lay off those workers there because we are not planning for it. Again. it does not make any sense because all we are doing is authorizing. we are not spending a penny with this bill today. The Committee on Appropriation and the appropriations bill will spend the penny. we are just authorizing them to do it. And since they have already come up with $600 million more. again my colleagues may disagree with that. well. then let us talk to the Committee on Appropriations. But NASA has already downsized and done everything they can. NASA has already downsized. and they have become leaner. meaner. In fact. whether it be the administration or those of us in Congress who have made them provide a better value for the American taxpayer. they have cut 4.000 civil service jobs since 1993 and plan to continue to cut another 4.000 by the fiscal year 2000. And the reduction in work force will not generate the savings for this coming year because NASA cannot technically execute a reduction in work force or a RIF. one early enough to generate that savings even if it is not authorized. That is what I think we need to go back to. and from what I understand. -this $81.5 million that is needed for the authorization to make sure that we do not have that furlough of those employees. these are fulltime NASA employees where planning but not authorizing funding for them. to furlough them for 10 to 12 to 21 days sometime during the year. Again that is not the way anybody should run their business. and we should not expect the Government to run that way either because we are just authorizing it today. The future of our work force depends on the highskilled and the skilled jobs that -the space station. the aerospace industry provides. and again we should not treat those employees. whether they are NASA or whether they are contract. in saying. "Well. weve sorry were going to lay you off for 21 days because we dont have the authorization to spend the money even though one hand we could do it. but on the other -hand we are not giving it to you." That just does not make any sense.
Date: 1996-05-30
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

In reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman. we are talking about the JacksonLee amendment. $81.5 million. The Committee on Appropriations has authorized $600 million. that $81.5 million could come out of that $600 million. and I could be corrected. but that is what I have been told. I do not know about the fixed asset part of this amendment. We are talking about saving employees from having a reduction in work force for 10 to 12 to 20 days by having some reasonable planning in the authorization. and that is what authorizations are supposed to be about. Mr. Chairman. that we plan for those employees to do their work fulltime. Mr. Chairman. I encourage adoption of the JacksonLee amendment.