macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-02-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I am proud to serve on the committee this year with the gentleman from Pennsylvania . the chairman. and our ranking member. the gentlewoman from Illinois . Mr. Chairman. let me tell the Members why it took so long to be on the floor. I know it was not our Chairmans responsibility. because he was given his marching orders to send this bill out. The reason we had to spend 2 weeks on this bill was because we did not get to have a public hearing in committee. Members have heard that for this whole 2 weeks. any time any of the Members from the minority side were up here. Maybe we are learning that if we are going to take this kind of time on the floor. maybe it would be better if our committees actually spent time in hearing from interested citizens and people who are impacted by it. Mr. Chairman. I am going to vote for the bill because I do not think the bill is that bad in its form. I just think because we took 2 weeks. though. the American people and each Member of this House needed to know what we were doing. We did. We know that this bill will require us to have some type of cost estimates. and we will have to have a separate vote on a point of order if it is raised on over $100 million. That is not so terrible. What we need to recognize. though. is what may come afterwards. because again. we are a Nation not of 50 individual States. and territories. in addition. we are one United States. We need to recognize that. that there are rules that all of us. whether we live in Texas. whether we live in New York or Hawaii. that we have to live under. Mr. Chairman. we were deliberative on this. That is why we had so many amendments on this. We wanted to make sure people understood that the Clean Water Act. with all its problems. and the Clean Air Act. and I want to amend it. too. and do some things with it. with all its problems. it was still a compromise bill that was passed in 1990 and signed by President Bush. Now it has caused problems we need to deal with. but it was still passed with bipartisan support because it was addressing a problem of clean air or clean water. Mr. Chairman. it has raised costs for our constituents. but like I said in the earlier debate. when I go to New York and visit the gentleman from New York . I would like to make sure that the water I turn on. I can drink. coming from Houston. I would like to make sure our Houston water is good enough for him to drink. That is why. Mr. Chairman. the reason we took so long on this. and because we did. is because of the partisanshipness. not of the issue but because of the procedure. 0 1550. I hope we have learned our lesson. that we need to spend the time in the committee and take that kind of time so we do not have to take 2 weeks or 435 Members. That is why we have committees. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania . because he is a fair chairman. our ranking member is fair. but I think all our committees in the House can learn from the problem we experienced in this bill.
Date: 1995-02-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. Speaker. I am indeed happy to join my colleagues in this very well deserved tribute to our former colleague. Bob Lagomarsino. As has been mentioned before. not only in the Committee on Interior. working with insular territories. and in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. that is the area that I worked very closely with him in our relationship with Mexico and many of the countries in Latin America. and his contribution was indeed a major contribution to the betterment of this country and our relations with them. He was a man of various and sundry areas of knowledge and expertise. and I think that this visitors center will really reflect what he has done. not only in the area of conservation of resources. but certainly in foreign affairs. and I am very happy to join my colleagues in this very welldeserved tribute to our former colleague.
Date: 1995-02-01
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held a hearing on the Contract With America. which deals with our nutrition programs. And a representative of the American School Food Service Association testified that if the Personal Responsibility Act were enacted as currently written. 40.000 out of the 93.000 school districts in the United States would stop serving school meals. That is breakfast and lunches for earlyfor children who get to school earlier. This. as we recall. was a bill that passed in 1946. in recognizing that children needed to have a lunch program and a breakfast program to make them ready for school. During World War II we found a lot of our children were not up to the nutrition standards that we needed. So that is why 1946. this program started. The reasoning behind the dramatic elimination of those school meals programs
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the effects of interest rate increases take time to show up in the economy. It was only 2 months ago that the Fed increased rates threequarters of 1 percent and only 5 months since it raised rates by a half percent. The Fed raised interest rates another half percent yesterday. It was the seventh increase since the beginning of 1994. The economy grew well in the fourth quarter of last year. but we are beginning to see signs of a slowdown. Mr. Speaker. the Federal Reserve looks at the big picture. the nationwide. the worldwide picture. but ignores the little picture. our districts and our cities. Home builders will build fewer houses. realtors will sell fewer houses. car dealers will sell fewer new and used cars. and our constituents will be able to buy fewer of those cars. This latest increase adds another economic burden to the people in my district in Houston as well as it does across the country. It means higher borrowing costs for consumers. higher .costs for capital for small business and mediumsized businesses. and as the realtors have said. it puts the price of a down payment on a home out of the reach of many Americans. Its time we started looking at the little picture.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I speak today in support of the LineItem Veto Act. and I support the premise behind the call for the lineitem veto. that the Congress has included many questionable items in appropriations over the years. and steps need to be taken to remedy the problem. Today the notion that Congress can control itself is doubted by the public. and that is why this is a popular idea. In the publics mind Congress defines itself with the little things we do as well as the big things we do. It is my sense that the lineitem veto may help put an end to the funding of some of the outdated. unneeded programs or projects that we put into appropriations bills. This will not. end. and it is not the panacea. The lineitem veto does not end Congress responsibility for selfrestraint. As my colleagues noted in our committee hearings. Presidents. recent Presidents particularly. are not known for submitting balanced budgets. and we should not expect this or any other President to save us from ourselves. We should consider another point. that maybe we are overselling the benefits of this bill. The Itemveto could cut millions of dollars and help Congress set better priorities on programs. for example. by eliminating nondefense items in the defense budget. but public support of this measure stems in large part from the size of the deficit. Many are under the impression the itemveto will have a noticeable fiscal impact. But what effect will it really have on the deficit? The itemveto has been used. as we heard earlier. by 43 Govgrnors. And I served 20 years as a legislator and with many Governors. and they enjoyed that authority. and I had the honor and privilege of having projects and bills vetoed by both Democrat and Republican Governors in Texas. The itemveto most often is used to get the attention of those of fis in the legislature and not necessarily as a budgetreducing item. I would hope it would be used for that. not only by our President if this passes. but also by Governors. I support the measure because I believe it is progress. However. the lineitem veto will not control nondiscretionary spending. the bigticket items like health care costs or interest on the national debt. I believe that the point needs to be made clear to the public. let us not oversell theebenefits of the lineitem veto. but we still need to pass it.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say to the gentleman. "I am supporting the lineitem veto just like you because in Louisiana you have that authority just like we do in Texas. Although I also recognize to transfer this authority from the legislative to the executive branch. which is what we are doing. it is because of the budget that we are doing that. But I am almost sure in having read some of the Louisiana papers over the years and your current governor. oftentimes. the lineitem veto is used not only to balance the budget but also to get the attention of those of us who serve in the legislative body and I am sure Governor Edwards just like Governor Briscoe and Governor Clements and White and all the rest of them in Texas have used it over the years to get the attention of us. that is a possibility.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. It is used oftentimes by the executive either to punish or to get the attention of the members of the legislative branch. But in the meantime. they are also using it to try to get Spending within check.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I agree that would probably even be a compromise on this bill. because in Texas we do not have that. When the Governor vetoes the line items. whatever they do. that money. even if it is below the prQjected revenue. that money just stays in the treasury.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I.rise to oppose the amendment simply because. and I support the bill. by this amendment we are setting apart defense spending. and I understand my colleague from California and my colleague from Texas and from Missouri. their concern about defense spending. We have a mechanism in this bill to protect from an irrational response or an action by whatever President. and. I say to the gentleman from California . I hoped we would also see a carrier named the Lyndon B. Johnson since I am from Texas too. someday. I support that also. But to set aside this measure and not let it go through the procedure that this bill creates for it to come back to Congress for us to vote. and I think we would not have any trouble getting a majority vote in the House or a twothirds vote. depending on what amendments we actually adopt to reauthorize that. and say. "Mr. President. no matter who you are. we want this program." By this amendment. we are saying. "Mr. President. you cannot cut the large programs. We have a deficit problem. You cannot cut $50 million or above. We can let you pick around the edges. but we have a $4 trillion deficit. and we are not going to talk about major programs. I think it would be irrational for us to do that. even for national defense. Let me talk about what we are saying to the American people by doing this. The national defense is our No. 1 reason for a government. But we are also here to brovide for that domestic tranquility. and obviously we are not doing it. But if we set aside and cut nutrition programs that are over $50 million for children. for school lunches. we cut nutrition programs for senior citizens. then we are not providing for that domestic tranquility any more than we are providing for the national defense. Let me remind this House that the reason we have nutrition programs for our schools is because of national defense. Harry Truman in 1946 said that our service personnel were not Up to standard. and we needed to provide that as a national defense issue. I think this amendment is wrong. We are setting it separate. It is so important we do not send that message to our people. Senior citizen programs are just as important. chapter 1 funding for Federal funding for education is just as important. and it is much more than $50 million. If we are going to start exempting out defense. and I agree that we need to have those programs from this. then we need to also exempt out education funding. senior citiiens food programs. elementary school programs. I just think this is the wrong method. because if a President does wrong. we can change it by this bill. and we should not start picking out certain issues or we will come with amendments up here today and do the same thing we did on the unfunded mandates and say let us exempt certain programs. This amendment was not considered in committee. never even discussed. and we had a full day of not only markup but also a full day of hearings. and this never came up. So I urge a "no" vote.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to the amendment. Amendment offered by Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas to the amendment offered by Mr. SKELTON of Missouri: Before the period at the end of the proposed amendment insert the following: "and Medicare"
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. this amendment came up veryquickly. Again. our committee did not even have the opportunity to discuss it or consider it in the public hearing or even in the markup. And my concern is if we are talking on an important national issue. and national defense is important. and setting up that anything over $50 million the President cannot lineitem veto and send back to us for consideration. why should we not also. if we are going to set up a separate classification for important programs that our Government is responsible for. why should not we also include Medicare for our seniors? Again. it is not necessarily the national defense is in the Constitution. but I make a case I think for domestic tranquillity and health care for seniors even though it was only since the 1965 under President Johnson that this Congress passed it. I think we ought to be able to set that up and send the same message that we do not want a future President of the United States to make the determination that our budget is so high that we are going to cut Medicare because it is obviously over $50 million a year. I think we need to set upif we are going to set up a sacred cow. and there are some that I have. and one is Medicare. I think a lot of Members of Congress would recognize that. Even the majority said they would not touch Social Security. I would put an extension on that to say that we are not going to touch Medicare. I would hope the Members of Congress would consider this. say that if we are making national defense important. over $50 million. let us look at it and let us look at Medicare. I would encourage Members to support this amendment.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. obviously. I disagree with the germaneness because it is talking about the lineitem veto and setting up a different program. Now. if we want to set up a different sacred cow. so to speak. or protect a different program than we are going to protect from the lineitem veto. I think it is germane to the bill. There may be a question about the amendment. but then we could run with a separate amendment. But to save the time of Congress you may want to consider it just as an amendment to the amendment.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. the gentleman and I have served many years together in the state house. and I am glad to see we agree today on this issue.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. sometimes this aisle gets to be a wall instead of a way we can cross. I am glad the gentleman spoke today and talked about this. We could set up other programs just like this if we wanted to. but this bill needs to be as pure as we can have it. I agree. though. that we might need to look at an amendment later to make it a majority of the House instead of twothirds. because I do not know if you could get twothirds of the House to override a Presidential lineitem veto. We might look at a majority on a later amendment.
Date: 1995-02-02
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman -yielding. I agree this is why we are here and to talk about the issues. I had not had an opportunity to read the Personal Responsibility Act or deal with it until we had the hearings yesterday. We had 6 witnesses. 5 of them called by the majority side and 1 of them called by the minority side. Of those 5. and that is what I said. that of those 6 witnesses. 5 of them asked that that be changed. that that PRA- or the Personal Responsibility Act that deals with senior citizens nutrition. They also asked for the school lunch program and breakfast program to be changed because the witnesses even called by the majority side said that that is wrong that we are cutting off food to children and some of the programs that have been developed over both Democrat and Republican administrations. But we used the testimony from the hearing yesterday and I called some senior citizens sites in my district and said. okay. just one provision of it that says that if you are under the age of 63. how many people are served in the Magnolia MultiPurpose Center in Houston that are under the age of 63 and not disabled. They told us. they said that this is the number we serve. They actually serve 35 people who are not classified as disabled and under the age of 63. The gentleman can look at the bill itself. It states if you are under 63. not disabled. you have to agree to work. or sign an affidavit to say you are working.
Date: 1995-02-06
Speaker: ERNEST LINDLEY (democrat)
Chamber: S

Who. in your opinion. would make the strongest Democratic nominee for the presidency next year? Representative JOHN F. KENNEDY (Democrat. Massachusetts): Well. as--Ive only heard of one or two men discussed. and as it seems fairly inevitable that if President Truman is a candidate for reelection. he will receive the nomination. I would say that he would be probably the strongest. Now theres been some talk of General Eisenhower running. I dont know whether General Eisenhowers a Republican or a Democrat.
Date: 1995-02-07
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. the minimum wage was increased 4 years ago. However. the purchasing power of that same $4.25 has declined 40 percent due to inflation. A recent study shows that in 1968 the minimum wage had a purchasing power in 1995 dollars of $6.49. There are arguments on both sides of this issue but allowing working Americans to work for a living wage is the best method to reform welfare. If a worker puts in 40 hours a week. 52 weeks a year. their gross wage is just over $8.800. For an average family in the 29th Congressional District of Texas which I represent they will be over $3.500 below the poverty line: Add the maximum earned income tax credit and that family will be $400 under the poverty line and eligible for welfare under many programs. However. this same family. with a minimum wage increase to $5.15 and their maximum earned income tax credit. will now be above the poverty level and will no longer have to be on welfare. If the Members on the other side wish to save on welfare. and wish people to work. increase the minimum wage so fulltime workers will. not be eligible for welfare. The myth that the minimum wage Is only paid to teenagers does not fit with the fact that over half of the minimum wage earners are 26 or older. Congress must act and allow working Americans to earn a living wage. My Republican colleagues talk about "metooism" from the White House on Republican proposals. My Republican colleagues should develop metooism on reducing welfare by paying an increase in the minimum wagemetooism is bipartisanship working. Let us. see it work for working Americans.
Date: 1995-02-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. mention was made of State and local. I want to know the extent of the local? Did this cover our county jails. our city?
Date: 1995-02-09
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman will continue to yield. but do we leave it then up to the option of the State? There is no guarantee here that my local county jail. who houses the same type of aliens. is getting any assistance.
Date: 1995-02-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise again tonight and take the floor again tonight to continue the discussion of the Personal Responsibility Act. The Personal Responsibility Act is the Republican majoritys welfare reform act. I wish us to take a closer look at the Personal Responsibility Act and how it affects all of us in the United States but particularly the State of Texas. " As 1 have stated on several occasions before. the Personal Responsibility Act would cut Federal funding in Texas over $1 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone. representing a cut of 30 percent. There are unsubstantiated rumors running through the Capitol that the senior nutrition program has been pulled from the Personal Responsibility Act. If this is true. I congratulate the Republican majority in their recognition of the absurdity that is included in the Republicans Contract With America. reducing funding for mealsonwheels and other senior programs. It just does not make sense. Under the original Personal Responsibility Act. the Houston Harris County Area Agency on Aging provided preliminary numbers last week from which we estimated how many seniors would be denied meals per day in Houston. After a closer calculation. the Area Agency on Aging has provided me with a letter that says 320 seniors would be denied a meal each day. 80.000. more than 80.000 meals a year if the Personal Responsibility Act passed in its present form. I insert that letter in the RECORD at this point. Mr. Speaker. and I appreciate the opportunity to do that. The letter referred to is as follows:
Date: 1995-02-09
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

House of Representatives. Washington. D.C. Dear Congressman Green: Per the request from your office regarding the impact of 30% reduction in our USDA Award. the following information is provided: The 30% reduction in our USDA Award would translate to 80.357 less meals available to our nutrition participants. When further analyzed on a daily basis. this would mean 320 seniors per day would not be served a congregate or home delivered meal. The Area Agency on Aging serves seniors who are 60 years and older. A dependent child of an eligible senior would also be eligible for our services. If additional information is required. please contact Charlene Hunter James. MPH. Director. Houston/Harris County Area Agency on Aging at (713)7949001. Sincerely.