macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. does the gentleman understand that the original block grant proposalwe have had block grants for 75 years from the Federal Government to the States. Each State already has that ability. It does not take this bill or this amendment to do that.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding to me. I am glad he pointed that out. Again. the Governors are not here on the floor of the House. They have their authority in the State legislatures and they can work their will there. but we do have a battle of letters here today from Republican Governors. national Governors. The national Governors do support the flexibility of keeping vocational rehabilitation as a separate revenue source or a separate stream. separate from this CAREERS bill. because it has worked for 70 years. Sure. they have gone through reforms in 1992. and we will reform them again. but we do not need to do it by lumping them all together with everyone else.
Date: 1995-09-19
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank my colleague the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I think we are getting down to calling a vote on the amendment. Let me try and sum up the debate.we have had for a good while here. We have 2 different groups of governors. I have a letter from the National Governors Association saying they support the amendment. that we have had flexibility in vocational rehab for 70 years. it is the original block grant. Why lose a program that is effective. that was changed in 1992 and will be up for reauthorization in 2 years? Why should we lose that and lose that flow to our disabled community? Let me talk about what the CAREERS Act would do. Under current law. eligible individuals are guaranteed access to the same quality and range of services no matter where they reside in a State. This guarantee would be eliminated under title V. whether the Work Force Development Board and their community had decided to provide this service. whether the work force development area could afford the service. That is why we need a State agency to provide this support and that is why the current system does not need to be lumped in with the CAREERS bill. The CAREERS bill is a good bill. I was proud to vote for it in committee as it came out with the understanding we would be able to address voc rehab. We have not been able to to the satisfaction of the client organizations that I have heard from. Again. we have client organizations. I understand. on both sides. But when there is confusion. we should not disrupt the system. we should let that be separate. Vocational rehabilitation is too important to have it lumped in with the general population. Let us keep that emphasis for vocational rehab for those clients who need it.
Date: 1995-09-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong objecsion to the proposed Medicare cuts and in objection to the propaganda we are hearing from the Republicans on their plan. It is not a cut. It is simple mathematics. The elderly served by Medicare are growing. the population served. Thus. increases in funding are needed to provide services for more people. If you cut from the rate of growth. you either have to push people out or you provide them less services for what they are paying. It is all too simple. Yet the majority would have us believe the reductions in Medicare are not cuts. Are we going back to the days when seniors had to choose between health care or food on their tables? Let us be honest about it. By cutting a program with a growing population. the result will mean - more rationing. Health care will be rationed to those who cannot afford to pay more out of their pocket and will be asked to pay more and more of their fixed incomes or greatly lower their standard of living for seniors. Ask yourselves these questions: Do you want poor seniors to pay more for less service. choose between health care or food? Do you want your elderly relatives to have surgery in a hospital. pushed to the brink of bankruptcy from cuts in Medicare? Or do you want a surgeon whose training has been reduced because of cuts in Medicare?
Date: 1995-09-20
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2274. legislation designating the National Highway System [NHS]. This legislation not only designates the NHS as established as part of ISTEA. but it makes a number of important policy changes. I am particularly supportive of this legislation because it recognizes the importance of Interstate 35 as a high priority corridor. 135 is the only interstate in our Nation that connects Canada. Mexico. and the United States. 135 is Particularly vital to my district of Fort Worth and my home State of Texas because it serves as our main corridor of trade with Mexico. In 1993. our country ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. This was the first step in improving our economy and strengthening our trading relationship with our neighbors to the North and South. However. the passage of NAFTA was only the first step. The responsibility of the Congress did not end with that historic vote. We must now act collectively to make the most of NAFTA by developing an infrastructure that maximizes the benefits of this agreement. One of the ways that we can accomplish this is to create a NAFTA Superhighway System. This concept continues to gain momentum around our Nation as an alternative to effectively and efficiently move cargo from point to point and from country to country. By recognizing the key arteries of trade in our Nation and utilizing the latest transportation technologies available. we can make great strides in ensuring that products manufactured in the United States reach their destinations in Mexico and Canada as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The system that I and a number of my colleagues envision as providing the greatest economic benefit is one that uses 135. from Laredo. TX to Duluth. MN as the trunk of a NAFTA superhighway system tree. From this trunk. the system will reach out like branches to the North and South. East and West. This option would tie together the major economic centers of our Nation with Canada and Mexico and ensure that all parts of our country benefit from international trade and NAFTA. Mr. Chairman. I want to applaud our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing the importance of 135 to the continued economic growth of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with them and all the Members of the House on doing all that we can to realize the benefits of international trade and NAFTA.
Date: 1995-09-20
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. as the debate proceeds on H.R. 2274. the National Highway System Designation Act. I want to register my views on several provisions that are of critical importance to the Nation as well as to my home State of Texas. The bill establishes priorities for our highway and transportation needs. It provides us with a mechanism to support infrastructure projects which have national significance. One such project which I commend the committee for including in the legislation would extend highpriority corridor 18 from where it currently ends in Houston. TX. to the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is one of the main gateways for goods entering and exiting the United States to Mexico. Its two main northsouth transportation arteries. U.S. Highways 281 and 77. are the two busiest highways going to and from our southern border. In fact. in 1993. these two highways handled approximately 4.7 million vehicles. a fourth of which were trucks. Rio Grande Valley highways service nine international border crossings which have a total of 30 lanes. In 1994. these nine ports of entry handled approximately 28.3 million crossings. The extension of highpriority corridor 18 into the Lower Rio Grande Valley will link together many of the major economic centers of our Nation with Canada and Mexico. providing us with a seamless trade corridor for the safe and efficient flow of goods. The extension of corridor 18 into south Texas ties in with planned infrastructure developments in Mexico. The entire United States will benefit from this linkage which will enhance economic development and international trade.
Date: 1995-09-20
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The question I have is what makes anyone think that someone in Washington. DC. knows better as to how fast you should drive between Fort Worth. TX. and Abilene. TX. than does the State senator or State representative from Abilene? The only two reasons that would justify such a conclusion is that the person in Washington. DC. known more about that stretch of road than does that State representative. or perhaps that the person in Washington cares more about the lives of Texans than does that State representative from Texas. Mr. Chairman. I content that neither is true. I know Texans know Texas roads better than does any resident of Washington. DC. I know Texans care as much about the health and safety of their fellow Texans as does anyone in Washington DC. After all. when they cast a vote in Austin. TX. they are voting for the safety of their own children and their friends children. It is not some bureaucrat in Washington. DC. making a decision about strangers 2.000 miles away. With all due respect to those who support this amendment. roads in the hills of West Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania do not look like roads in west Texas. Those from the Northeast do not know what flat is. I can assure you. If it is safe to drive 55 anywhere in West Virginia. I can assure the Members. it is equally safe to drive faster than that in west Texas. Mr. Chairman. let the experts make this decision. the experts in Texas. the experts in West Virginia. the experts in California. the experts in Montana. the experts in Minnesota. This is a very diverse country. Let us look to the wisdom of the people who live on those roads. who drive those roads. to make those decisions. Washington does not know best. The people in Texas know better than does the Federal Government about our roads. and I can assure you they care just as much as any employee in the Federal Government who has been in power to make this decision. Mr. Chairman. I urge the defeat of the Rahall amendment.
Date: 1995-09-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. no wonder there are brawls in the House of Congress. It turns out that the Republican plan to raid Medicare of $270 billion to pay for $245 billion in tax cuts. By a partyline vote the Republicans delayed the release of their plan and only committed to 1 day of hearings. maybe tomorrow. We had 28 days of hearings on Whitewater. 10 days on hearings on Waco. and 8 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge. and I did not object to any of those hearings. That is what Congress is supposed to do. is to have hearings. But this shows the hypocrisy of the Republicans when they are taking only 1 day to hold hearings on their plan they are so proud of. Why is the majority rushing the Medicare reform bill to the House floor for a vote before the 37 million elderly Americans and their families have time to review the plan? I think the answer is clear. The Republican majority. they do not want the American people to know what is in their Medicare reform bill because it does major surgery when only minor surgery is needed. The $270 billion cut for Medicare and the $245 billion cut in tax cuts. we can cure Medicare by cutting fraud. waste. and abuse. but not major surgery.
Date: 1995-09-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. 8 days on the Ruby Ridge incident that happened in 1992. long before most of us. least the majority in the House. were ever elected. So we had all those days of hearings after the fact. and here we are only going to have 1 day of hearings. 1 day on a plan that will be released maybe today for hearing tomorrow. and that is where our priorities are wrong. and that is why the Republican majority is wrong. and they need to look at what the American people are saying. that we need to get our priorities straight here in Washington. We need to realize that we need to listen to our constituents. we need to have more than just 1 day to hear from them. and the people are asking us. "Dont go to Washington and lose touch." Well. this is a prime example of losing touch. by announcing a plan on Thursday. have 1 day of hearings on Friday. and then the whole House has to consider it.
Date: 1995-09-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

We have had this proposal abolishing the Department of Commerce that I am not in favor of. I agree. in fact. that when we were in the Texas Legislature. you were the father of the sunset legislation. and you were in the State senate. and I was in the House. and I served on the sunset commission. I like the idea of looking at agencies and reforming them. but we reform them over a period of time. We do not all of a sudden wake up on Thursday and say we are going to abolish and we are going to change this agency to deliver services and provide assistance to American businesses. We are going to have vote on that Friday. You do not do that on those agencies. and why should we do it to the most important issue that this Congress may consider? It is like you said the health care for 37 million elderly U.S. citizens.
Date: 1995-09-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. we need to ask ourselves then why is the Republican majority rushing the Medicare reform bill to the House floor for a vote before the American people without time to review the consequences. Well. I think the answer is clear. The Republican majority does not want the American people to know what is in their Medicare reform bill because it is incredibly harmful. Frankly. it is no wonder that the plan is shrouded in secrecy. If I had a plan that was going to make seniors pay more for less service and force them to give up their. possibly their. lifelong doctor. and all to pay for illadvised tax cuts. I think I would be scared. too. and I would want to rush it through on a short notice. We hear a lot of times about how Medicare is in trouble and we need to reform it. We have reformed it over the last 30 years from the time it was passed. but right now we can deal with fraud. abuse. and waste in Medicare and do some of those reforms that will save us some money and reform Medicare. but not for $270 billion to pay for $245 billion in tax cuts.
Date: 1995-09-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Well. in an outline that is 30 pages long can you imagine how big the plan must be for us to be able to analyze it before the hearing tomorrow and before the members of the Committee on Ways and Means may have to have it? The numbers on the plans are that we have heard leaked out just do not seem to add up either. We talk about increases in seniors paying their monthly amounts that they pay doubling it over the next 7 years. or maybe more. But there is still an $80 billion hole that they are looking for. The President has come up with. has a Medicare reform plan. and even the trustees. who our majority. have talked about that they are running around like the world is going to end unless we listen to the trustees report. these very same trustees said we do not need to cut $270 billion out. We can do $90 billion worth of reform and safeguard Medicare. Now 10 years from now. 8 years from now. Congress is going to have to revisit that issue because again I wish you and I could stand here today and solve our problems today. but that does not work. We always have to be ready to change in reform whether you are in government or whether you are in business. There are different ways to do things. But we can solve Medicares problems by without cutting $270 billion. and again I hope the American people understand we are looking at cutting $270 billion at the same time they are granting $245 billion in tax cuts. $245 billion. Medicare is paying for those tax cuts. and. if they can stand there on the floor and say that. I want to be bipartisan? Let us solve Medicares problem. but let us take those $245 billion in tax cutsoff the table. and then we will talk about solving Medicare. Do not use Medicare to pay for tax cuts. We need to balance the budget. but we do not need to do it on the backs of Medicare. I thank my colleague from Texas for the time. and I look forward to continue to being in the trenches.
Date: 1995-09-27
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to the socalled TEAM Act. H.R. 743. This bill amends section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. the portion which prohibits the establishment of company unions. and it eliminates employee protections. Mr. Chairman. in an earlier life. before I was elected to Congress. I actually helped manage a business. But I was also a union member at the same time. In small businesses. we have been using the team idea for many years. We did not know that is what it was called. But we also recognize that there were protections that were provided by Federal law. Mr. Chairman. the intent of this legislation may be good. but its impact is to dismantle employee organizations and possibly set up sham unions or sham employee groups. I strongly favor a comprehensive labor reform bill. but not at the expense of the protections of the American workers. We should be fair not only to employers. but also to employees. My colleague. the gentleman from Wisconsin . wants to resolve the question of whether workplace teams are legal under 8(a)(2). However. there is nothing under the NLRA. or any decision by the National Labor Relations Board or the courts. which prohibits teams or workplace cooperation. The entire point of the National Labor Relations Act is to encourage employee empowerment. Employee empowerment is a creative and successful way to manage a business and increase productivity. as the gentleman from New York said. if it is done right. But there are no protections in this bill to keep someone from coming in and saying. "We are going. to empower our employees. but we are going to select them. We are going to let them decide. but we are going to select who is going to make the decision on your pay." That is not what labor law is about. Under current law and NLRB decisions. employers are free to use methods of production which rely on work teams. In 1977. the NLRB held that an employer has the right to set up a method of production which delegated significant managerial responsibilities to employee work teams. This bill is a bill whose time has not come. Under current law and NLRB decisions. employers are free to use employee committees to consider issues. And. again. I support the idea of the team effort. but this bill actually takes away protections that we have enjoyed for 50 years.
Date: 1995-09-27
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague from Ohio for his amendment and his hard work and dedication. not just today but through the committee process. My colleague from Missouri. who his point was that we need to change. well. granted. there are wrinkles in the problem. but this bill is like using a canon to deal with something that a BB gun could address. The Sawyer amendment clarifies that a workplace team creates an improved competitiveness is not prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act even if its members occasionally discuss conditions of employment. such as wages and hours and working conditions. The amendment is a good faith effort to meet the concern of the majority. no matter how unfounded those concerns may be. The Sawyer substitute specifically protects three types of teams: Selfdirected teams of employees. supervisormanaged work teams focused on improving specific production processes. and broad .or ad hoc teams of employees and managers. The gentleman from Iowas amendment is designed to create a safe harbor for employers genuinely concerned about their ability to create team systems for work organizations. Mr. Chairman. this amendment is a good compromise. and it should have been adopted in committee. but. a I recall. it was defeated on a party line vote. The Sawyer substitute would protect those employers truly concerned with teamwork and employee involvement and will assure American workers rights and retain their right of legitimate employee representation. That is why I urge an aye vote. Mr. Chairman. like I said. I like the idea. as a manager of a business. of the team aspect. but. again. we need to look at it in comprehensive form. This needs to be addressed. but I would hope that somewhere in the next year we would look at comprehensive labor law reform. This is one part of it. but there needs to be more to it than just this one issue. I would hope we might be able to address it later on or maybe even just put this bill off until we can address it comprehensively. and I would hope that would happen.
Date: 1995-09-29
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Madam Speaker. let me change the tone here briefly and get away from all of the rhetoric that we have heard and the ostrich and all of that. I do not think this will enlighten in any way the American people. Madam Speaker. I am here to address agriculture. that agriculture is in trouble and we are. havin no assistane. no help from all of those people on my left that are worried about what is happening to Medicare and Medicaid. I am worried about what is happening to Medicare and Medicaid. We need to address the fraud and the abuse. If you just made every hospital play it straight and be honest. you would not have to cut and tax and also to add burdens to ourseniors. I have a very poor district. and we cannot afford to pay more. We need to work it out. But let me say one thing. I am frustrated. The board of trustees of the Democrats? Where do you get that? Read the law. Find out who named them. They were Bushs trustees. They were Reagans trustees. And for someone to fix up little pair paper and come and read it and to say the Presidents board of trustees.
Date: 1995-10-10
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. and I thank the manager of the bill. Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting and bringing to the floor H.R. 436. the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. H.R. 436 would require Federal agencies to differentiate between edible oils. animal fat and vegetable oil. and petroleumbased oil products when issuing regulations under Federal laws that deal with a fat. grease or oil.