macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment in front of us applies to noneconomic damages known to most people as pain and suffering. emotional distress. Joint and several liability for noneconomic damages is a system that asks Peter to pay for Pauls sins. The bill currently remedies this inequity for all products cases. However. our amendment extends this muchneeded reform to all civil actions. This means that each defendant will be liable for damages for pain and suffering in an amount proportional to his fair share. When joint and several liability was first developed. plaintiffs had to be found completely blameless to recover damages. Now with few exceptions. plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are partially or mostly at fault. In a recent case involving Walt Disney and a woman injured on bumper cars. Walt Disney was found 1 percent at fault in an accident. yet the trial court held and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that Disney had to pay 86 percent of the plaintiffs damages. It may make sense to require that a single defendant be held accountable for all economic damages to make sure that the defendant is made financially whole to the extent that dollars can account for the problems suffered by the plaintiff. but there is little justification for allocating liability in this manner for highly subjective non.economic damages. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. The problems of joint and several liability are not limited exclusively to the product liability area. Excessive noneconomic damages are not commmonplace in all types of cases. including claims against citizen. small businesses. charities. and the Little League. Let us ask each citizen. to pay his or her fair share of the damages. no more. no less. That is fair. Mr. Chairman.. tLask my colleagues to support this. amendment.
Date: 1995-03-09
Speaker: PETE GEREN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. and I want to direct Members attention to the change that has been made in this amendment. This was an amendment that was the subject of the rules change earlier today in the printing in DSG that describes it as a limit on noneconomic damages for all civil actions. That is no longer correct. This is limited to health care liability actions. It is patterned after the MICRA system in California. The Office of Technology Assessment reported in 1993 that limits of this type that will come about as a result of this amendment are the single most effective reform in containing medical liability premiums. Ohio is a good example of a State in which a cap on noneconomic damages had a substantial impact on costs until it was struck down. Prior to the enactment of the cap. Ohios payment of medical malpractice claims was 3.7 percent of the total nationwide. That declined to 2.9 percent while the reforms were in force. In 1982. the Supreme Court invalidated the claim. and by 1985 the percentage of nationwide claims had almost doubled to 5.4 percent. California had the highest liability premiums in the Nation prior to its e actment of a cap of this type. Since its enactment. cap premiums are now onethird to onehalf of those in New York. Florida. Illinois and other States that do not have these kind of limitsContrary to what many are saying. a ceiling on noneconomic damages will not in any way restrain the ability of an injured party to recover medical expenses. lost wages. rehabilitation costs. or any other economic outofpocket loss suffered. It only limits those damages awarded for pain and suffering. loss of enjoyment. and other intangible items. These items routinely account for 50 percent of the total payment of a suit and are highly subjective. Mr. Chairman. this system has worked in California. it is an important planning in any health care reform we consider as a country. and it will help us hold down the skyrocketing costs of health care in this country. Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Date: 1995-03-15
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. .Mbalnman. 7 thank the gentleman for ailowing me to address the Committee Ior .2 minutes. I serve on the Commitlee -on Economic .and Educational Opportuitfies and the xestoring of $10 million with the 5482 million cut is to -small. Just recently. a Wall Street JournalNBC poll showed that 79 _percent of Americans believe nutting the Deuartment of Education funding is moving In the -wrong direction. So that means even -restoring $10 million is moving in the wrong direction. Let us look at what the rescission bill does to education -ar a whole. As my ranking member now -of the committee. the -gentleman from Missouri . said. UG0 million from Title I ofOhapter 1 funds. in the -State -of Texas we arelosing 69 milion -out of this ill on just title I -alone. Title I was reauthorized last year. and allowed for more flexibility in our school district and now we are actually cutting it. Drugfree schools. a $481.9 million cut. again. and a $0 million restoration will not go anywhere all .over the country to help. it is literally a figleaf. Diana -Kelly. Pxesident of the Galena Park Area Council PTA. stated that -eliminating -these programs would be .catastrolfhic not only to her district but to our Nationisyouth. Cutting the sale and .drugTree schools by 1472 mfllion. if this amendment is adopted. is Tobbing from our kids .by providing -tax "rea.ks for the -wealthy. Thle tax cft is already out of the Committee onWays and Means. TechPrep wascut $1DB million. TechPrep. every witness in our committee this year called -by the Republican :majority supported Tech--Ppep. -and yet -we -e zeroing -it out because we -are taking away money from current -education. Seventynine percent of the -people say they -did not want to -cut -education funding. yet this Mouse. by -thee -Republican majority. is -doing that. This represents the Goals 2000. which .was many years im the making by -President Bush and now President �Clinton..is -actuall being cut $142 million. This .is not the way the American people want -us to -go.
Date: 1995-03-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. welfare reform is needed. Let us have a real debate on welfare reform. We can require work. Let us set time limits on assistance for the nondisabled. Let us require job training. Let us do a better job on collecting child support. I think that needs to be done. But this bill today is more than that. This bill is about cuts in assistance to children. And whether you call it cuts or. under the newspeak. we call it limitations on increases. the American people want welfare reform. but they do not want cuts in our school lunches. Yesterday I had lunch at the J.P. Henderson Elementary School in Houston. TX. Those children enjoyed their lunch. We had a burrito. and I will have to admit it was harder for me to eat than it was for them to eat. But their lunch is important to them. as important as their school work. their room or their teachers. because a child who is hungry cannot learn. The American people understand that. and I hope people would understand in this Congress that they need to read their lips. they want welfare reform but they do not want cuts in school lunch programs. as this bill. H.R. 1214. will do.
Date: 1995-03-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman. we heard many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle expressing their views and their concerns about this legislation. I share the same concerns about cutting fraud and cutting abuse. seeing that our monies are used efficiently for the purpose intended. Beyond the rhetoric and beyond the policy and beyond the sound bites. beyond everything that we have heard here tonight. I would ask for Membei 6 to come with me to every home across America: a little shanty. a little ramshackle farmhouse. In my area. we have some cardboard and tinroofed places where the poor live. I can assure the Members. and I challenge anyone to deny. that in some of those houses Members will find a hungry child that had no supper tonight. Members will find an elderly person that had no supper tonight. I challenge anyone to deny that. They cannot. because that is the fact. That is the purpose for -.hat we use the food stamps. All the other areas we can address. and we have. It- pains me to hear Members using the political "40 years. 40 years." For 28 of those years. those 40 ye2_rs. we had a Republican President. that Republican President that tried to cut some of the programs. How ironic. I quote: I cannot leand my support to the concept of turning back to the States all responsibility fcr achie% in child nutrition goals. In short. w" have a continuing obligation to ensure th _. the nutrition needs of our truly needy youngsters. wherever they may reside. are adeauatety met. This is and must remain a national priority goal. Quoting the Chairman. the gentleman from Pennsylvana . who chairs one of cur committees at this time. That is a quote from the RECORD.
Date: 1995-03-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

6f Texas. If the 5 years. I want to know what you have gentleman would yield. to complain about compared to what
Date: 1995-03-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Ms. PELOSI: The difference. my colGREENWOOD. like you. I was waiting for league. and thank you for yielding. is my turn. and I also serve on the corn- that we are talking about a block mittee with you. And let us talk about grant versus an entitlement. When you that "not cut" a minute because we are talking about a block grant you are served on that committee. and we tried talking about a limitation on the numto take away. and there was an amend- ber of children and the kind of nutriment in committee to eliminate the tion they would get. block granting of the school nutrition. Mr. GREENWOOD. Let us talk in And it was generally a party line those terms. vote. as I recall. to take away the Ms. PELOSI. That is an important school lunch in this process and say. point because when you are talking okay. let us do welfare reform without about an entitlement. then the money touching school lunches. And it was de- will be there for the children. feated on a party line. So the Repub- You are talking about a block grant lican majority in our committee said that has several shortcomings. First of school lunch is a part of the welfare re- all. it is a limitation on the amount of form bill. money that will be spent regardless of You say you have an increase. but let the growth and need for children who me talk about and ask you about if are hungry. this is correct. Second of all. your block grant re-
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. you know being a nurse you understand the importance of nutrition. It did not start with children. Poor nutrition was recognized back during World War II when we found that our soldiers were not quite prepared and when they looked for the reason it was because they did not have proper nutrition. So it stands to reason if our soldiers were not prepared without proper nutrition our children simply cannot be. They cannot be healthy adults unless they have access to some nutrition as children. We have heard that the nutrition programs for children will not be cut. I simply want to call our attention to this graph. If it is not going to be cut. then what does this mean? If it is going to be cut. this $13.6 billion dollars. $7 billion to bring it up to $13.6 billion by the year 2000. when it should be $15.9 billion. is that a cut with more and more children eligible for school nutrition? We must look after the health of our children to have a healthy Nation. We are not asking for welfare for adults We simply want attention being given to our children. Do not punish the children for what parents do not do.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. listening to the debate. a name burns in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez. 6 years old. her parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed under a truck. These were poor working people. and if you reduce by one the availability of child care. I want it to burn in your mind. Alejandrita Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the rich. We are talking about not welfare. not revamping. We are missing the boat altogether. As good intentioned as all of us might be. you have not done anything to help Alejandrita -Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we can give tax credits to $200.000 and over.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman and hopefully. when we have more time. we will be able to address the underlying motives behind this issue in this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. and thank our colleague. the gentleman from Florida . Let me say everyone is in favor of cutting fraud and waste and abuse. and saving money. There is not problem in that. How we address it is part of the problem. And I basically am in accord with what the gentleman is attempting to do.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. and I appreciate his interest and his effort. All of us are of course in favor of reducing fraud. waste and abuse. and certainly this is an area of very strong interest to us. What I would like to ask of the gentleman is that there is concern that there needs to be further refinement of his amendment. Am I correct in that?
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. we appreciate that. We support the gentlemans intent and motive. and hopefully we will be able to craft it in an appropriate manner so it can address effectively the intent. And I thank the gentleman.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. yes. perhaps we have gone a little astray of the debate on the amendment. Butand not in defense. but feeling the same way as the gentleman from Florida -the issue is the way that the rule is crafted. the inability for a ranking member to have sufficient time to discuss an issue. But the underlying theme here is the motive and the reason. We are going about with little amendments that cut a little bit here. save a little bit there. What for? So that we can pay for tax breaks for the rich. That is what this is all about. It is not what the chairman of the committee is intending to do. We have a good chairman. We have good members on this committee. But the underlying motive of the leadership ismoney to pay for tax breaks for the rich and take it from the children and take it from the elderly and take it from those that cannot defend themselves. So. getting back to the amendment. I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is a good amendment. But I disagree with what we are going to do with the funds: Give it to the rich.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield en bloc half of my time to the gentleman from Kansas . the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman. I join the gentleman from Kansas in opposition to this amendment. There was a novel and innovative block grant program called revenue sharing. It did not work. Besides. if you give 50 States the money. you will have 50 different programs. Is that streamlining? Mr. Chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas .
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

The savings are in the way that we revamp the food stamp program and not as much as you revamped it. you reduced them. but-
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the Deal amendment. I support the substitute offered by Representative DEAL which provides real reform of our Nations welfare system without penalizing children. seniors. or economically disadvantaging people. Congress must provide training and transitional assistance to move Americans from welfare to work. Without providing the helping hand to welfare participants. Congress will force them to make a choice between health care benefits. child care and housing assistance. or work. No one should be forced to pick between their children or work. We must take charge and reform the welfare system which penalizes families for staying together or trying to obtain work which will cause the loss of several assistance programs. The Deal substitute does provide this assistance in the crucial transition period. A 2year extension for medical assistance allows a welfare recipient to better their life and keep their health care benefits. The Deal substitute is tough love but it provides the helping hand for recipients to move on to a better life. Deal requires double the number of people to work than the Republicans do and provides more assistance. While the Republicans claim they are tough on requiring work for welfare. the Deal substitute requires it. The Deal substitute allows nutrition programs to continue under current law. The Republican bill cuts school lunch and completely changes the entire program. Under the Republicans bill. school breakfast and lunch funding is guaranteed to Governors but there is no guarantee of a school lunch meal for our children. The block grant funding system does not allow for any of this and will force the State of Texas to make up for lost funding either by raising taxes or cutting services. Cutting services means fewer meals. The Comptroller for the State of Texas estimated a loss of federal revenues of over $1 billion in the next 2 years if the Republican welfare bill is passed. Congress must not force this massive cost shift onto the States. We passed the unfunded mandates but this will be- an unfunded mandate beyond any other. The State of Texas will be forced to take charge of programs which the Federal Government is abandoning. We must not turn our backs on the children. seniors. or any Americans. I support the Deal substitute and I ask for its passage..
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Let me remind. I have heard it tonight that we started with Lyndon Johnsons Great Society. 1969 was the last time we had a balanced budget. That was the last budget Lyndon Johnson submitted. So even though you trace it to 1965. the last budget. after 18 years of Republican leadership in the White House. we. have not had a balanced budget since the last one President Johnson submitted.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I thought we were under a fiveminute rule. I would be glad to yield time when I come. but. Mr. Speaker. if we are going to have that as a procedure. then we will probably have about 20 Democrats over here.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that Mr. GREENWOOD had spoken earlier under the 5minute rule. If he has not. and I will take your word for it because I know you spoke. but maybe it was yielded because we have been yielding time to many different people.
Date: 1995-03-23
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I want to address sofie of the CRS report Mr. HOKE brought up tonight and last night. because we have had a chance to analyze that. Mr. Speaker. I want to place in the record a letter from a student I received today from the Aldine School District who talks about how important the school lunch is to her and how she believes the Preamble to the Constitution pointed out that we are supposed to provide for the general welfare. Now. we need to reform welfare. but we need to recognize that is still a part of our Constitution. The student praises the benefits of the school lunch program in the Aldine community. and last night Members from the Republican side and Congressman HOKE talked about the CRS memorandum. that I had achnce to read today and claims that .school lunch funding under the welfareblock grants was sufficient. However. this memorandn points out that the children under the Department of Defense were leftout. wele left out. until it was put in on the floor. because three committees looked at it and forgot 57.000 children. This memo says that was left out. The memo does not take into effect the programs folded into the school nutrition block grant. The memo does not estimate the 1997 to year 2000 funding. based on the assumption that the CRS did not want to guess at what new programs would be established by the States. This does not do. anything except talk about next year. When they talk about the State of Ohio getting .$11 million. we hope the Committee onAppropriations in 1997. 1998. and 1999 would fund that money. but there is no guarantee. This assumes the system will change in such a dramatic way that the current assumptions will not work. That is what this CRS report says. That is why it is extreme to stand up here and talk about it in this bill. What Members of Congress should focus on is the shell gamethat this does. It takes away that guarantee of that school lunch for an authorization and maybe an appropriation. maybe. In the amendment today we had a chance to vote on the school lunch program in Mr. DEALSS amendment. The school lunch program would have been protected in current law. But we saw on a party line vote who wanted to protect the school lunch program. and that voted failed on the Deal substitute. Current law provides that school districts are reimbursed for every meal and the Republicans promise of an increase again depends on what will happen in their Committee on Appropriations. Lets take for example what happened last week in the rescissions bill. We have a track record already in the first 100 days of cuts in summer jobs programs for students. and I would hope the U.S. Senate would take that out. I would be glad to pin my label on there for the State of Texas. because our comptroller estimates we will lose $35 million in school lunch funding.
Date: 1995-03-24
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. today Congress will pass a welfare bill that will cut $35.1 million out of the school lunches in the State of Texas. according to my outsidethebeltway analysis from our State comptroller in Texas. Today the Republican majority will rejoice. but the children will be hurt. Many of my Democratic Members have been sporting ties and scarves from Save the Children. and I even heard this morning one Republican Member offered to have a secondary market in used ties. But I am going to save mine until October and November of 1996. so when the kids start getting their lunches taken away from them. the voters will remember in November who took those lunches away.