Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, after joining my fellow Americans in remembering our Nation's veterans this past Memorial Day, I would like to take an opportunity to recognize the passing of one particular individual who served this Nation for over 20 years. On Thursday, May 30, retired Lt. Col. Richard Seymour lost a difficult battle with illness, but I rise today to call attention to life's victories. Richard Seymour was born on August 20, 1950. He spent his childhood in Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas, graduating from Alamo Heights High School in San Antonio. He then attended Southwest Texas State University where he was enrolled in the Air Force ROTC program and received his degree in education. Upon graduation he was commissioned as 2d lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. Richard Seymour's service to this Nation was impeccable. As an Air Force pilot, he logged over 6,000 flight hours including missions which transported this Nation's top military leaders as well as Members of Congress. Throughout his military service, Richard Seymour received many commendations, too many to list, but each a distinguished mark of honor on his journey to the rank of lieutenant colonel at which he retired. His proudest mission was assisting in the repatriation of foreign citizens in Kuwait at the outbreak of the Persian Gulf war. Upon retirement, lieutenant colonel Seymour continued service to this Nation. He began a second career in the classroom, returning to San Antonio and focusing his energy on the education of tomorrow's leaders. We feel sorrow and loss that his time with our Nation's children was cut short. Mr. Speaker, in light of knowing that Richard Seymour touched so many lives in as many ways, I ask that my colleagues join me in offering our most sincere respect and thanks to the service of Lt. Col. Richard Seymour and that when the House adjourns today it do so in his memory and honor.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 238 earlier today I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise and thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the 1 minute, and oppose the resolution, for many reasons, including the unnecessary deep cuts in the Medicare needs totaling $168 billion. I also oppose the resolution because it increases the budget deficit by enacting fiscally irresponsible tax cuts costing $176 billion. After 3 years of progress on deficit reduction in which the President kept his promise in cutting the deficit in half, the Republicans now want to reverse the trend and add $23 billion to the deficit next year. Three years ago Republican after Republican came to this well to talk about the sky would fall if we passed the President's economic plan in 1993. Since then the deficit has been cut in half and millions of jobs created. Instead of continuing the work that was started in 1993, the Republicans want to give tax cuts and raise the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I think the Republicans should listen to the majority leader now in the Senate, Trent Lott, who said that one solution to the budget problem is to reduce the tax cut. I would hope that we would remember that the budget is so important. We need to make sure we prioritize.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House sent to conference committee a health care reform bill and hopefully we will see a bill come out. But the one that was in conference committee now allows for what is called MSA's, for most folks medical savings accounts. It would be a Federal tax deduction for someone who can afford to buy a high deductible insurance policy, $4,000 or $5,000 deductible a year. This Congress removed the deductibility for health insurance premiums, for the average working stiffs in the 1980's. The average working stiff who pays it by the month will not be able to deduct their premiums. Yet we are going to give it to the wealthiest who can afford $5,000 a year. As my colleague from Ohio says, beam me up. We are going to let the wealthy, are helping the wealthy more by the $5,000 deductible buy MSA's, but we are not letting the average person who pays their health insurance by the month deduct it. We ought to do both in this Congress.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here we have the second verse same as the first but with a lower in tone. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is continuing its attack on Medicare. Last year they wanted to cut the growth in Medicare $270 billion and provide for a tax cut of $245 billion. While they still have their sights set a little lower this year, they still want to cut Medicare $168 billion. Now they say that it is cutting Medicare or that it is cutting the growth of Medicare, but again let us reason that if you have more people getting to be 65 and people 65 living longer, you have to have growth even more than inflation that they say. At the same time they want to give this tax cut of $176 billion only to some of the wealthiest. For the second year in a row the Republican majority is using the trustees' report to talk about how bad they need to do it. If Medicare is in trouble, then let us take that savings and plow it back into Medicare, and not use it to give tax cuts or to balance the budget. I hope that our Republican majority will change their second verse.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who are here today and Members that are watching in their offices, this is our morning hour that each of us can get up and talk at this time for 4 minutes on issues that concern us. A lot of us, whether you are Republican or Democrat, were concerned last week about the Medicare trustees issuing their report on the status of the Medicare trust fund. The trustees said that if nothing is done, the trust fund will be insolvent in the year 2001. This is a serious problem which the Congress should address in a bipartisan way. However, instead of addressing this short-term problem of Medicare, because it is a short term, it was addressed in 1993 and extended it, and now we need to do it again. We should have done it in 1995 and now we should do it in 1996, to move the year out from 2001 to 2005 and hopefully 2010. But the Republican majority continue to insist that the way to do that is to cut Medicare trust funds and yet at the same time provide even more money in tax cuts. Again this year the numbers have gone down. In 1995 we were looking at $270 billion cuts in Medicare and $245 billion in tax cuts. Well, this year it has gone down to where we want to cut $168 billion in Medicare over 6 years and provide another $176 billion in tax cuts. The cuts in Medicare are the cuts in the expected growth. The reason that is hard, I know a lot of times people listen and say, ``Well, it's not really a cut in Medicare,'' and it is not. There is a growth in Medicare. But we have to have the expected growth in Medicare because there are more seniors growing into Medicare every day and if we just match inflation, then we are going behind and the people who are there now, the 70-year-olds, the 80-year-olds who are on Medicare are going to see a cut in the services they have. That is why it is a cut in Medicare even though it is a cut in the growth. But again we need to deal with Medicare and not talk about the tax cuts because they are irresponsible. There is no free lunch. We learned that in the 1980's when Congress passed tax cut after tax cut and yet increased spending. You cannot cut taxes and increase spending. That is what they are looking for. There is no pain-free that you can do. But they have conveniently forgot that the last time Congress did this in the 1980's with a Republican President and Democratic Congresses, that is why we now have a $5 trillion debt, and that is why it needs to be dealt with. But that was not done just by Democrats. In fact the last balanced budget we had in this country was in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam war and also at the height of the Great Society. So do not let anyone tell you that the Great Society causes debt. It is Congress not being able to control its expenditures on a yearly basis. We are still living with these consequences of the 1980's. Now we have the summer movie season. For a year and a half the Republicans have been trying to write a sequel to the supply-side deficit from the 1980's. We call that ``The Original.'' In Congress they offered the tax cuts and told the public we would grow ourselves out of deficits and into prosperity. In the sequel now we are seeing they want to offset their tax cuts with Medicare cuts. Unfortunately for the American people the sequels are rarely as good as the original and that is what worries me. One of the other ways that they talk about preserving Medicare is medical savings accounts. Again we are considering a bill today for health care for everyone and hopefully we would have a health care reform bill. But it is going to die on the cross of the medical savings accounts and that is what is frustrating, because medical savings accounts, I can go out now or any individual can go out and buy a high deductible insurance policy now that says, ``OK, I'll pay my first $5,000.'' The problem is that the Republicans and medical savings accounts want to give that $5,000 as a deductible on their taxes. This is the same Congress in the 1980's that removed the tax deductions for average individuals for buying regular medical care policies. If we are going to do it for the rich, then we need to do it for everyone who buys any type of health care policy. Let us make all health care premiums deductible and not just those for the rich.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the Jackson- Lee amendment for a few minutes, and I think the Members who are here and who are watching it now realize that we are talking about authorization bill here. The Committee on Appropriations has already appropriated $600 million more than this bill authorizes, and what we are trying to do with my colleagues from Houston, Ms. Jackson-Lee's amendment, is to provide $81.5 million in additional authorization to make sure we do not have as much as 3 weeks' furlough of the employees there. That is really not a way to run a government, a business, or an airline, or a railroad, or anything else where we plan to authorize less than what we are going to spend so we can lay off those workers there because we are not planning for it. Again, it does not make any sense because all we are doing is authorizing, we are not spending a penny with this bill today. The Committee on Appropriation and the appropriations bill will spend the penny; we are just authorizing them to do it. And since they have already come up with $600 million more, again my colleagues may disagree with that, well, then let us talk to the Committee on Appropriations. But NASA has already downsized and done everything they can. NASA has already downsized, and they have become leaner, meaner. In fact, whether it be the administration or those of us in Congress who have made them provide a better value for the American taxpayer, they have cut 4,000 civil service jobs since 1993 and plan to continue to cut another 4,000 by the fiscal year 2000. And the reduction in work force will not generate the savings for this coming year because NASA cannot technically execute a reduction in work force or a RIF, one early enough to generate that savings even if it is not authorized. That is what I think we need to go back to, and from what I understand, this $81.5 million that is needed for the authorization to make sure that we do not have that furlough of those employees, these are full-time NASA employees where planning but not authorizing funding for them, to furlough them for 10 to 12 to 21 days sometime during the year. Again that is not the way anybody should run their business, and we should not expect the Government to run that way either because we are just authorizing it today. The future of our work force depends on the high-skilled and the skilled jobs that the space station, the aerospace industry provides, and again we should not treat those employees, whether they are NASA or whether they are contract, in saying, ``Well, we've sorry we're going to lay you off for 21 days because we don't have the authorization to spend the money even though one hand we could do it, but on the other hand we are not giving it to you.'' That just does not make any sense.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the State of Michigan, 420,000 workers would see an increase in the minimum wage. And I would say to my colleague who just spoke, he knows that in 1993 and 1994 we were working on health care and not a minimum wage to try to provide for raising the standard of living, and that is why minimum wage was not increased in 1993 and 1994.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on my committee for yielding the time. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] is honest about opposing a minimum wage, but in Colorado 145,000 workers will see a pay increase if the Riggs amendment is adopted.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from California, 1.3 million workers will see a pay increase if the minimum wage is passed. The gentleman's quote from U.S. News and World Report is straight out of Adam Smith, but it is more like the Addams Family.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from South Carolina, South Carolina would see an increase of 196,000 workers who would see a pay increase. That is a pretty good size football stadium.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my colleague from Arkansas that over 50 percent of the people over 25 will receive a minimum wage increase. In fact, in the State of Arkansas 158,000 workers will see a minimum wage increase if this bill is passed and the Riggs amendment is passed.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, who serves on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, would actually see an increase of 210,000 workers who would see a pay increase if we pass the Riggs amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Sugarland, TX knows that in Texas 1,100,000 people will get a minimum wage increase. He knows why the President did not increase the minimum wage. We were trying to provide health care, and we could not do both on small businesses. Since health care reform did not pass, now we have to try a minimum wage increase.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, may want to know that if we pass a minimum wage increase that 345,000 workers in North Carolina will see an increase in their wage. That is a pretty good tradeoff if those jobs are really lost, but I do not think they will be.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. speaker, I want to applaud my colleague from California because I agree that a minimum wage should have been with the welfare reform bill. If we want to get people off welfare, we have to provide them with a decent minimum wage. Right now in our country if a person works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, they make $8,800. They are eligible for food stamps, welfare, whatever it is called. That is why it should have been part of it. The bills that were sent to the President by this Republican Congress did not have the minimum wage increase in it. It should have been part of the welfare reform bill but it was not. That is not the fault on this side of the aisle. It is the other side. That is why it should be part. I agree with my colleague from California. A minimum wage increase should be part of a welfare reform bill. The minimum wage increase passed the last time in 1991 with 135 Republicans in the House supporting it. I think that is ironic because we had a Democratic majority in the House and a Republican President that passed the minimum wage increase. Now we have a Democratic President and a Republican majority in the House and the Senate and yet we have waited for 2 months to try and have a vote on the floor today. What do we have? We have a vote on a bill and an amendment, the bill that has portability which itself could stand alone and be debated, in fact we could probably pass it with some fairness in the portability bill, but, no, we are going to attach a minimum wage increase to it that is going to take away millions of people from coverage under the minimum wage. We are giving it with one hand and we are going to take it away with the other. That is what the people of the United States have said in 1992 and 1994. They do not want Washington practicing sleight of hand. They want Washington to be up-front and honest with the American people. By withdrawing the coverage of minimum wage from these interstate small businesses, we are actually lowering the coverage to over 10 million people. That is what is wrong with this bill and the amendment, and that is why when it goes to the Senate, hopefully they will change that if we do not beat it today. The minimum wage increase passed in 1991 with bipartisan support. Hopefully we will have that again, but it needs to be a real minimum wage increase and not a fake one.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partially open rule, not in the effect that it has on the bill that affects small business and the tax cuts but the effect the rule has on the minimum wage bill. After months of Democratic attempts to have a vote on raising the minimum wage, the House Republican leaders have at last allowed us a vote. This minimum wage bill, though, let me point out to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, never had a hearing in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, even though you gave credit to it earlier, we never had a public hearing, never had a vote on this bill. So now it is out here today but without having the committee hear the bill. We should not be fooled by this sham of a bill. This could be April Fool's for the American workers. Now you see the wage increased, but now you do not. House Republicans have attached special interest provisions to exempt millions of people from the minimum wage. Now you see it; now you do not. Working American families expect a clean up-and-down vote on a minimum wage increase, including those that are covered today, but not taking millions out of protections for minimum wage. Instead, they are caving in to the special interest groups. The restaurant lobby, they get to freeze their minimum wage for tip workers. There is a training wage. We have heard this before. In 1990, there was an experiment with the training wage. It did not work. It did not work then and it will not work now. Also the amendment to exempt millions of workers who will lose minimum wage and fair labor standard protections. American families are working harder. We see the disparity in the income. The rich are getting richer, and we are trying to keep the poor from getting poorer but not with this bill. It is tough to get ahead when you cannot make enough money in your pockets to put food on you table. This minimum wage legislation began in 1938 with 25 cents an hour. I have to admit that if it had taken the Republican votes to increase it over the years, we would not have had any increases. I ask my colleagues not to allow millions of working American families who now earn $4.25 an hour to say, well, I am going to get an increase. No, you are not, not if you work in a business that earns less than $500,000. Do not give it to them with one hand and take it away with another.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my colleague from Georgia talking about that. If he had his way, we would still be 25 cents an hour from 1938. That was the first minimum wage. After months of blocking attempts to increase the minimum wage, the House Republicans are finally going to allow us to have a vote. But my colleagues should not be fooled by this sham. It is not an increase, it is actually a cut. It is exempting millions of workers from the minimum wage. This bill only will attach special interest provisions to exempt those millions from minimum wage. Eighty percent of the American people support an increase in the minimum wage, but the Republicans want it without the gimmicks of the exemptions for restaurant workers, the exemptions for computer operators, the exemptions they are providing. They are actually taking people off the minimum wage benefit. That is what this sham is about. They do not really want a minimum wage. Just continue to listen to them. They do not want an increase in the minimum wage. They do not want a minimum wage. They want everybody to work for a quarter an hour.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues, we do not need to make Medicare a partisan issue. The problem that we have is that last year it was a partisan issue, and it continues to be. Let me give you an example of how this administration is dealing with the Medicare crisis. Here in Congress we were unable to come up with an agreement on the Medicare insolvency, and yet there is a program called Operation Restore Trust not only in my State of Texas but a number of States. That program was just given over $4 million last year, and yet it returned 10 times that amount to the Medicare trust funds. I believe this is an area that we need to devote more resources. The President has requested $597 million for antifraud activities, which is $150 million more than current spending. Let us give him that in this budget agreement we are talking about today so we can deal with Medicare fraud. The problem we have is that they will not do it. Last year they wanted to cut the effort for Medicare fraud, and that is where the seniors know that we can get the money to protect Medicare. There is no silver bullet for balancing the budget. You have to do it every day, every year, and leaving the scene of the battle is not the way to do it.