macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-02-27
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 1022 and the peer review process contained therein. Any true regulatory reform must have as a fundamental principle a methodical process to evaluate the relative risk of a proposed regulation. That is where peer review comes in. and it is an integral part of this bill. Some critics have voiced skepticism over the peer review provision of H.R. 1022 because it does not require peer reviewers to be excluded solely because they represent entities that may have an interest in the regulation. Some feel that this sets a dangerous precedent. inviting conflicts of interest. Not only is there precedent for such peer review pahiels. Congress has in certain instances required panels to include labor. industry and others involved in an issue so that balance is achieved in a peer review process. Under the provisions of this bill. the panels are required to be balanced and all panel members must fully disclose any interest they have in the outcome. This same practice has been followed by a number of advisory boards already in existence set up by the Federal Government. For example. under the National Environmental Policy Act. the Science Advisory Board was established to conduct peer review of any proposed standard. limitation or regulation administered by the Environmental Protection Agency The Science Advisory Board is required to be composed of at least nine members with the only qualification being education. training and experience in evaluating scientific and technical information. Nowhere does it dictate who should or should not participate in the decisions because of their affiliation. Scientific integrity has been maintained under the Science Advisory Board. Nothing has been compromised. In another example. the Occupational Safety and Health Act established the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health to advise. consult with and make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor on issues under OSHA. Specifically. the committee is to be composed of representatives of management. labor. occupational safety and occupational health professions and the public. Clearly. all of these parties have a stake in the decisions made by this committee. but none is barred by participation based on that interest. The Energy Policy Act. passed by Congress in 1992. also requires the establishment of a peer review panel. and there are no requirements based on interest in the outcome. Mr. Chairman. the provisions of the peer review process of this bill are sound. and I urge support of this bill.
Date: 1995-02-27
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 support of the Brown substitute. I have some serious concerns about H.R. 1022. which is before us today. It started out with the best of intentions: reforming the Federal regulatory system. We all agree that change is needed in this system and change is startingto occur. in the Clinton Executive Order No. 12866. in * the Reinventing Government work. and on a number of fronts in individual agencies. I think that most of us agree that any legislative measure to speed this change in a constructive direction is welcome. What is not welcome is the bill that has emerged from Committee consideration. Somewhere between the original intent of this bill. something has gone wrong. The problems with this bill are so extensive that only a substitute measure can correct them. and for that reason I am supporting the Brown Substitute. Let me give you a single example of the problems with H.R. 1022. The bill. in Section 201(b)(1) states: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law. the decision criteria of section (a) shall supplement and. to the extent there is a conflict. supersede the decision criteria for rulemaking other wise applicable under the statute pursuant to which the rule is promulgated. . This single sentence overrides every existing statute and imposes the risk analysis and benefits calculation process outlined in this bill. Where is the list of these statutes that are being overridden? It does not exist. During committee markup. the comprehensive list of statutes was requested. but was not available. The report accompanying H.R. 9. the original legislation from which this bill was derived. has a simple table outlining some of the statutes overridden. But it is not complete. nor do we know today what the impact of approving this sentence will be. And this is not a partisan concern. Republican Members of the Science Committee observed in the report on H.R. 9. which contains this same preemptive language: (T)itle I may undermine landmark laws that were enacted only after years of work and discussion to create a delicate balance of interested and affected partieslaws that range from protection of food and drinking water quality. to aviation safety. to hazardous waste management. and preservation of wildlife. (Supplemental Views. Report # 10333. Part 2.) The Brown substitute contains a savings clause that makes its provisions in addition to and not in place. of the provisions of existing law. That is the sane way to legislate. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.
Date: 1995-02-28
Speaker: CAROL C. NADELSON (democrat)
Chamber: H

M.D.. Editor in Chief. American Psychiatric Press. Inc.. Washington. DC. DEAR DOCTOR NADELSON: Thank you for your recent letter demonstrating the misuse of an American Medical Association [AMA] statementon menopause. I appreciate having the benefit of this information. The statement quoted by the insurance company is not AMA policy. but rather is a definition taken from 6ne of the AMAs many consumer books. The purpose of the AMAs consumer books is to educate the public about common medical conditions. not to serve as rationale for classification of conditions by the insurancb industry. While the cited definition is supported by the medical literature. the AMA regrets that its statementis being used by the insurance industry to deny payment for treatments. In addition. I wish to assure you that the AMA supports equal rights for men and women and does not advocate any position that would lead to the discrimination of women in terms of their health care. Again. thank you for sharing your concerns with me. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely.
Date: 1995-02-28
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: S
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. obviously I am not going to talk about the Brady bill. being from Texas. But let me talk about school lunch programs and the importance of making sure that we save that program. In the Houston Independent School District next year we would lose a halfmillion dollars for the school lunch and breakfast program. In the State of Texas. we would lose $261 million in a 4percent cut. The first round of cuts included the school breakfast and lunch programs. The second round of cuts last week from the Committee on Appropriations Included funding for safe and drugfree schools. I think this is a war on schools and a war on education and a war on children. and I would hope that we would then look at this Contract With America and see whether providing increased funding. including $11 million for two new airplanes the Army did not request. $20 million for a new runway for a base that is on the Base Closure Commission. $1 million for a bike trail in North Miami Beach. I think we see the priorities have changed. We are taking money away from breakfast and lunch programs and providing it in this new Contract on America.
Date: 1995-03-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. .Mr. Chairman. I rise to support the Reed amendment. Let me. before I get into my remarks. respond that the. I never heard trickle down. Mr. Chairman. referred to in a positive way. particularly- from this side of the aisle. But the chairmans opposition to the amendment talks about that it did not work under President Ford. Carter. Reagan or Bush or President Clinton. But the OMB has the authority to. under any rule. to designate as a major rule that would truly have significant regulations .and so we would not have it fall through the crack based on $50 on $100 million. So we would hope that the OMB would be able. whether they are under President Clinton or under President Ford or Carter and the other President. they could have made that designation and decision instead of being stuck by an arbitrary dollar figure. My support for the amendment talks about the dollar figure and recognizing what the sponsor of the amendment. my colleague from Rhode Island. talked about. that if we used $100 million in 1975. it is different than 1995 and reflects that the need for it. But even more so. I have some concern about the amendment. It also addresses a provision in the bill on page 8 where the language that says. not only the $50 million that we would change to $100 million but striking out lines 12 through 20. some of the language in that bill. . I am concerned on this bill but for a number of bills. Let me say that I supported the bill yesterday. I voted for the bill yesterday that in title II had $100 million in it. I know there was other thresholds in the bill yesterday. but the risk assessment bill yesterday also had $100 million even in title II. But the provisions in this bill that we are striking out have some language. I think. that it will be. hard for a court to decide. particularly in section C where it says. "significant adverse effects on competition. employment. investment. productivity." We are writing a statute here. That needs to not be so subjective. I think. where are we going to define "significant adverse effects"? The oil crisis of 1980s in Texas had very significant adverse effects on Texas economy. but oftentimes we could not get the response that we needed out of the various agencies to loosen up on some of the regs that would have us be able to compete better. The provisions of the amendment not only are good because it raises from 50 to 100 and reflects more 1995 dollars. but it alsostrikes out lines 12 through 20 that gives other criteria that. frankly. the OMB can make that decision already without putting in there language that is not defined in the bill as far as I can see and very difficult to define anyway. Major increases in costs or prices for consumers. we can. define that many times. Again. major increases sometimes affect certain geographic areas of the country where it may not others. That is why I rise to support the amendment and think that it is a good amendment and makes this bill much easier to support. Mr. Chairman.
Date: 1995-03-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman will continue to yield. these are people who had permission to come here. like the gentleman said. If we want to say. today. March 1st. we are not going to let any more people come in legally. if that is the decision this Congress wants to make. or the American people want to make. but not tell someone who has invested not only their life in some cases. and particularly with our veterans. they could have invested their life in defense of our country and not make them eligible even though they have paid the bill just like everyone else. I always use the example that our forefathers were not citizens of our country All of us came from somewhere. I am glad my greatgreatgrandmother happened to be born in Baltimore Harbor. because that made my great grandmother a citizen. I guess we have. to recognize that. that we are a nation of imknigrants. because every one of us came from somewhere. Even Native Americans walked across the Alaska bridge to come here. We need to remember that when we are talking about it and not say that someone is here legally. because for many years we had no immigration controls at all. When a lot of our forefathers came. if you could make it here. that was fine. because we were building a country We are still building a country. but we have immigration controls. and we are askingpeople to abide by the law. and yet these people who have abided by the law. we are now saying. No matter how many years you have invested in this country that you wanted to come here. nobody forced you to come here. that you have invested. now we are going to take these benefits away. or take something away from you.
Date: 1995-03-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr Speaker. let me give an example. like the gentleman did. I have a family that I grew up with. Their children are my same age now. They have lived here all their life. Their mother is still alive. She is not a citizen. she is here legally The children were all born here. The children are now in their forties. and they are law enforcement officers. they are managers of business. they are superintendents at companies. and those children are providingand that mother raised those children here. They pay taxes with their father. and they have lived here. and yet to tell that elderly senior citizen that now. Im sorry. you are 77 years old. and even though your children are hardworking and paying lots of taxes. because I know their income. that she is not going to be able to have the socialization and the hot lunch with the senior citizen center that is 7 blocks from her house. I do not think that is the Americanism that we all uhfderstand. and the compassion for people. and also the feeling that we have for everyone who. again. tries to obey the law and is a productive citizen. That is why I think hopefully the committees will change. the other committees. because we were not able to in ours. because of the abbreviated session. and I dont know if we would have had the votes anyway. even if we had the time to have the amendment. But I hope when it comes to the House floor we will at least make that correction so we can address it for legal immigrants. and particularly for legal immigrants who are also veterans. who again have put down their lives and sacrificed their time in defense of the freedoms that they now enjoy. but we may be taking some of them away if we pass this bill.
Date: 1995-03-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today is a day for the State of Texas. It is Texas Independence Day. I wanted to ask the House to sing just one chorus of "Texas. Our Texas." but I did not get much response. Unfortunately. I looked at it and looked at the Republican Contract on America and realized that they are celebrating giving women. children. and senior legal immigrants independence from nutrition programs. They are celebrating by putting in jeopardy Social Security. Today is also Sam Houstons birthday. the first President of the Republic of Texas. But he was not born in Texas. Actually he was born in Virginia and was a Federal officeholder in Tennessee and in Texas. But under the bill that passed out of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee last week. he would be ineligible for programs under that Republican bill. Because of the Republican bill. the USDA estimated that $1.3 billion would be cut over 5 years for the school breakfast and lunch programs. The Texas Education Agency estimated the welfare bill would cut school lunches in Texas $261 million.
Date: 1995-03-03
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I have not heard anyone here on either side of the aisle defend the present welfare system. All of us want change. The difference is. on my side of the aisle. we do not want extremism. We do not want a system that is going to just punish and not find a way out for independence. I am from Texas. and I can tell the Members that the child nutrition program has been helpful. Every report tells us that once the program started. children are attending school better. their attention span is longer. and they are achieving grades. We cannot. as a nation who cares. send our children through life without some kind of caring. Mr. Speaker. if we want to create 50 new bureaucracies by sending it to the States. then we will have more government than we ever bargained for. States rights for poor children in Texas has never worked. One out of every nine children in Texas is now hungry. Almost half of the lowincome families are now hungry. Mr. Speaker. I can tell the Members that most of these families have at least one working person. Are we going to throw our children to the wolves to give a tax break for the rich? I hope not.
Date: 1995-03-06
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman. I let me just share very quickly that my father told me that the reason why he did not want to go to college is because he did not want to teach or preach. he wanted to be a businessman. The opportunities did not exist. So. therefore. there was no encouragement to go on for education. He made a very good living and was a very good father to all of us. Times have changed. and we do not want to go back. We want our young people to understand that if they choose a nontraditional profession. if .they choose to be a scientist. if they choose to be a physician. the opportunities will be there and those opportunities have not always been there. I remember when Texas paid black students to leave the State to go to medical school. We do not have to do that anymore. but we do not want to go back. We do not want to go back where we were. When young people see that their parents have an opportunity because they stayed in school. they do not have to continue to struggle because they cannot get a contract because they prepared themselves well. then young people will be encouraged to do the right thing and to be well qualified for jobs and professions that they would like to contribute. But if we go back. we will say to the world. as a global leader that in this country we do not treat all people the same. all people do not have an opportunity. and so take to the streets. break the law. Those are the opportunities you have. We do not want to go back. We would plead with the people. let us go forward. This is America where all people are supposed to have a right tothe dream. and the only way .that we have had a real little glimpse at that dream is through opportunity. I thank the gentleman very much for having this session tonight.
Date: 1995-03-07
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. last night and this last weekend we heard the Republican majority defend their 6chool lunch changes. It is the great Republican shell game for school lunch. They promise a 4.5percent increase under one shell. but they do not tell us what is under the Appropriations Coinmittee shell. What is under the- State shell. when they can cut 20 percent from the School Lunch Program and transfer it to other programs? The Republicans are playing budgetary shell games with school lunches. They are taking a guaranteed school lunch for children and subjecting it to the authorization process. to the appropriations process. and then subjecting it to whatever a State may want to do up to 20 percent. On one hand they promise an increase in funding. on the other hand the Committee on Appropriations has been cutting the summer youth jobs and other programs for children. Are we going to protect the lunch program. or are we going to subject it to the Committee on Appropriations and what they are doing now? Will school districts be forced to .end programs when massive rescissions bills come down after they have already bought food? Maybe we should go to the kids during the year after they have already had that luncheon say. you need to give it back. Why is Congress trying to fix a program that has been working since 1946?
Date: 1995-03-07
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. a number of us are taking the floor tonight in an attempt to respond to some of the misinformation used to justify the repeal of the DavisBacon. a law that requires fairness for our workers. The DavisBacon Act provides a process in which the Federal Government and many local governments must pay workers in a specific area the same wage on federal contracts as any other contract. There are several arguments put forth by the Republican majority or at least some of the Republican majority. because I would like to insert into the RECORD a letter from President Reagan in 1981 showing his support for DavisBacon Act.
Date: 1995-03-08
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the. Republicans should stop playing the shell game with promising increased funding for school lunches but not guaranteeing that increase. The Republican welfare reform. bill removes the guarantee of school lunches. but it does provide an- increase in the spending authorization. Promising an increase in one bill at. the same time passing this week massive education and school rescissions in another bill proves to America that no program is safe from the budgetary axe of the majority party. including school lunches. I ask my colleagues from Texas to contact the State agency which is running the school breakfast and lunch program. They estimate a cut in meals to children. We may wish to waive this off as a reduction of an increase. but what about the increase in population which has occurred in Texas and particularly in Houston. Let us be fair. take school lunches and breakfast program out of welfare reform and put it back- into education. A hungry child is not a good student. These programs could be streamlined. but Congress should guarantee that every- child in America should have a hot nutritious meal at school. Under the Republican bill. we lose the lunch guaranteed by this shell game. promising an increase. taking away an appropriation and yet letting the State transfer 20 percent.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. this amendment is in fact a clarifying amendment to title I of H.R. 1075. Our amendment would clarify that companies that rent or lease products are covered by the provisions of title I. Currently under title I it is clear that product liability actions against companies that sell products are subject to section 103. Section 103 provides that a product liability action cannot be pursued against a product seller unless the seller has been _ negligent. has offered an express warranted offer.. or has engaged. in intentional wrongdoing. Simply stated. there should be no liability without fault. That is the intention of this clarifying amendment.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I yield to there is a lot of debate and a lot of conthe gentleman from Illinois. cern have been moved aside. and they
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Reclaim- squeezed into the product liability. and ing my time. Mr. Chairman. I yield I have some question as to how it may such time as he may consume to the havemoved into the torts area. and it gentleman from Texas . is not quite clear. But nevertheless. my
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gen7 of my time. tleman from Minnesota . Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana for the purposes of a colloquy.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

The gentlemans understanding of this amendment is correct. and that is an accurate characterization of it. I appreciate the gentleman helping us to clarify the intent of this amendment.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. borrowing from the wisdom I picked up from the gentleman from Louisiana over my years here. and drawing on the comments of the gentlewoman from Colorado. when the package is sold. you wrap it up. Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.