Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Record to show that had I been present for rollcall vote No. 709, I would have voted ``aye.'' I was tied up in traffic and could not make it here in the 17 minutes. personal explanation

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republicans finally conceded that their so-called Medicare reform plan would extend the Medicare trust fund only to the year 2006 instead of 2010, as they have been claiming. In fact, they claimed on this floor yesterday early in the morning that their plan would extend the Medicare trust fund until the year 2010. Now the Republican majority realizes they only need $90 billion to stabilize the trust fund until the year 2006 and not $270 billion to stabilize to the exact same year. It is very interesting to note that the Democrats have an alternative plan that would assure the solvency to 2006 by only cutting the necessary $90 billion. What we need is to be asking our friends on the other side, Why are you cutting three times more than you need to stabilize the fund, and you are only stabilizing it to 2006? Be honest about it, it is going to tax cuts. At this point I suppose we should ask the Republican majority, Why are you increasing premiums, deductibles, copayments, and making extreme reductions in payments to hospitals to provide a budget-busting tax cut? There is a country western song in Texas that is popular now. It is called ``I Let Her Lie.'' The people know now who is the one that is doing the lying.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just so my colleagues know that there are two sides to the debate, Medicare is not going bankrupt until, not going bankrupt until, the year 2002, and we can change Medicare by cutting over the next few years and increasing beneficiaries' costs may be $90 billion, not $270 billion. That is why the Republicans are scared, because the American people are not buying what they are trying to sell them. It is a tax cut of $245 billion over that same 7 years and a Medicare cut of $270 billion. Mr. Speaker, the American College of Physicians and Surgeons, the AARP, finally came off of dead center and said it is wrong. We even have a freshman Republican doctor who has been quoted as saying, ``I guarantee you that these reductions will be bad for quality health care, not just for our senior citizens, but also for working people.'' Hello. Earth to the other side of the aisle. Listen to your own people. These extreme, and that is extreme, cuts do not need to be made to save Medicare, only $90 billion, not $270 billion.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will yield, but let me make my remarks about the Medicare to my colleague from Arizona because I want to make sure my colleagues understand that that is what our morning hour here is about, so we can exchange ideas and talk about it. Over the last week I spent a lot of time in my district, like other Members have, and I used this last week to meet with constituents, and visit a number of my senior citizens' centers, and answer their questions, and I have not had the opportunity to host our Social Security Commissioner, Dr. Shirley Chater, in Houston, and she toured one of our west-end senior citizen centers, the Magnolia Senior Nutrition site, and also the Texas Medical Center to talk with those who are most affected by the proposed cutbacks in Medicare. [[Page H 9747]] You will notice I did not say cuts, cutbacks, because when you add more population to it and you do not plan for that increase, it is a cutback. Ms. Chater made an interesting point during her visit. I would like to reiterate it. We have all heard the word ``bankrupt'' a lot. All by friends on the other side of the aisle stand up and wave the Medicare Trustees' report and explain how they are trying to save the system from going bankrupt. Ms. Chater is not only Social Security Administrator, but she is also one of the trustees of the Medicare trust fund, and she pointed out to the seniors in Houston, TX that the system really is not going bankrupt. It may have problems that need to be addressed, like it has eight times or nine times in its history over the last 30 years, but as long as people paid into the trust fund, those of us who are earning now, it is not going bankrupt as long as we plan for the future. My friends on the other side of the aisle say we are scaring seniors. Seniors ought to be scared. I think the polls show they are getting scared by what they hear. In fact, they should be the ones that should quit scaring seniors into thinking they are going to cut $270 million out of Medicare and it will not be around next year unless they do that, because that is what the fear is: Unless we cut $270 million out of the growth over 7 years we will not have Medicare next year. We will have Medicare next year, we will have it the year after that, but we need to have a reasonable plan to get its policies on expenditures in line like we do every Federal program; but not $270 billion, more like $90 billion. It is not true, and it is is wrong to scare the people into thinking that. Let us be honest with the American people. They need $270 billion to meet their tax cut goals. I have heard those goals were met with the appropriation bills. But, Mr. Speaker, we have only passed one appropriation bill here on this floor that went to the President, and was vetoed last week, so those cuts are not in place. Now they are talking about cutting Medicare. There are no ifs, ands, or buts; the seniors in this country will have to bear the brunt of the pain to balance that budget to give that tax break. That is the truth, and even the Republican Members of our other body have expressed strong opposition to cutting taxes while simultaneously slashing Medicare. These Senate Republicans are beginning to say, as our Democrat leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], has said for months, in fact the gentleman from Missouri was in Houston at another senior citizen site a few months ago, and said that before we start talking about reforming Medicare, let us sit down and look at the whole budget, but let us take off this tax cut of $247 billion. I was in Houston for over a week, and I have talked to hundreds of seniors. Several have asked me to outline what the plan entailed. I have briefly explained $110 billion will come from health care providers, 80 billion from the beneficiaries and their increase in Medicare part B, and $80 billion from future unspecified cuts will be decided by some bureaucrat here in Washington, DC. Of course, that begged the question: Who is going to make that decision? Will these unspecified cuts be out of providers, or will they come from increased beneficiaries' cuts? We do not know, but that is the only place this can come out of, unless we take more out of the Federal budget. The translation is, I tell the seniors in my district, to expect more direct hits down the road if this plan passes. My constituents asked me, ``It's kind of sketchy to us. Why don't we get some more detail?'' I said, ``Okay, that is what I will do.'' I am waiting, because I know the Committee on Ways and Means is still meeting, to see what their plan will do on these unspecified cuts. Mr. Speaker, I know I have exhausted my time, and my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], has left. But I know that I join with a lot of people, the AARP, the American Medical Association, and a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who question what may be happening to Medicare if we do not do something reasonable instead of cutting $270 billion.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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: Self-directed teams of employees, supervisor-managed work teams focused on improving specific production processes, and broad or ad hoc teams of employees and managers. The gentleman from Iowa's 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-called 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 [Mr. Gunderson], 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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 [[Page H 9411]] government or whether you are in business. There are different ways to do things. But we can solve Medicare's 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 Medicare's problem, but let us take those $245 billion in tax cuts off 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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 ill- advised 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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, ``Don't 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Well, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me and my colleague from San Antonio. This is not just the Texas hour here. But it will impact people who are not seniors, not only those who are disabled before they are 65 but the seniors' families. We all have family members who are over 65 and enjoy Medicare, because I have shared with my relatives what we had before 1965 when we had no Medicare, and we know the difference between 1964 and 1995 when we had no Medicare. I rise today objecting to this phantom plan that we have that will be released today for two reasons: One, it is a proposed cut; and also objecting to the lack of the public hearings on the proposal. Now, we have been told that the committees have been hearing Medicare proposals and talking about Mediscare tactics on what needs to be done, but we have not actually seen the plan, and we have not seen it as of today. And what they are going to have a hearing on tomorrow, 1 day of hearings is just wrong. The propaganda being dumped on American people by the Republican Medicare plan that will be released, that it is not a cut and just slowing the growth is preposterous. We know that we have to plan, whether we are in business or in government, your expected growth in your business or in your senior population. It is real simple that the population served by Medicare is growing, and there are going to be more people who will be 65 next year than were 65 last year or the year before. The people, thank goodness for our health care successes, are living longer. And yet when they say they are only slowing the growth in Medicare, they are actually going to end up rationing in the cut and in the growth. You either have to push people out of the system or you are going to provide people proportionally with less services. When they reduce that growth, they are affecting not only those who are currently beneficiaries in Medicare but those people who will become 65 next year and the year after and, you know, until the year 2002. If we go back to the days when seniors had to choose between health care and food on their tables, are we going to do that, and I think that is what will happen by cutting a program with a growing population. We will need rationing. Last year I was here. My colleague was still on the Supreme Court of Texas. I was here and involved in the health care reform, and the fear from all of us, and we would have rationing if we had some national health care. Well, here we have a plan that will create rationing for seniors, and the health care will be rationed to those who can afford to pay more out of pocket. They will be asked to pay more and more of their fixed incomes, which will lower the standard of living for our seniors. Now I have heard and read the articles that everyone has read about how our seniors are so much better off today than they were 30 and 40 years ago, and that is true. That is why Medicare was established, because you realized in the 1940's, and 1950's, and early 1960's, that seniors were being left out of the growth and the benefits of America after they spent their life to build this country, and a number of them literally put their life on the line to make sure this country can still enjoy the freedom, and now we are going to take those people who served in World War II and say, ``OK, now you received Medicare, and we're going to make you pay more for less.'' I think your poster is so correct, I say to the gentleman. We need to ask ourselves, ``Do you want the force to pay senior citizens to pay more for less service and choose between health care and food? Do you want our elderly loved ones to have to have surgery in a hospital pushed to the brink of bankruptcy due to cuts in Medicare funding?'' In my district in Houston we have a number of hospitals that their patient base is substantially Medicare, and Medicaid, and managed care, and managed care is forcing hospitals to transfer those costs to Medicare recipients, and there is just no place to go if you [[Page H 9410]] cut the cost of Medicare. You are going to have hospitals close not only in rural areas, but in urban areas. Do you want to have to be operated on by a physician or surgeon whose training may have been reduced by the cuts in Medicare that we do now for medical education? We hear a lot these days about avoiding a train wreck. Well, the seniors of our country will experience one of the most destructive train wrecks in history if this plan is passed. If you answered no to any of these questions, then I hope it is not only our duties as Members of Congress, but our constituents and people all over the country, to oppose this Republican Medicare train wreck that will be fostered on us tomorrow. My second objection is lack of public hearings that we have had to this not-yet-released plan, and here we are Thursday, and you and I have not seen it. Of course we do not serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, so we might not see it even until tomorrow when it is released publicly. But I participated in 10 days of hearings on the Waco incident. I saw 28 days of hearings on Whitewater and 8 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge, and I do not object to those hearings.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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 party-line 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection 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?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GENE GREEN of 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. The gentleman understands States already have flexibility, though.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman understand that the original block grant proposal--we 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.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in hearing the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. I know we share the concern and support for the overall bill but not for this amendment. You cannot put a rate-of-return requirement or a cost-benefit analysis requirement on vocational rehab services. It costs more to train and educate someone who needs those services than someone who is laid off because of a job. Let us talk about the program. Let me respond a little bit to our chairman when he talked about the failure of the current program. We had 1992 amendments that increased the number of persons with disabilities eligible for the services. The agency case loads have risen significantly. Most of those new participants are persons with severe disabilities. In 1993, the year of the GAO study, when these changes were being phased in, the number and percentage of successful cases closed dipped. The Republicans are now trying to use this statistic to junk the whole system and to talk about how bad it is. It has been serving people for 70 years, and 13 million people have found jobs under the current vocational rehab system. Let us not throw it out and just call for reform. Let me talk about the GAO study that justifies their attacks. What they do not tell us is that the GAO overall assessment of the rehab program was positive. For every $1 invested in the current programs, it generates $18 in the form of reduced disabilities payments and taxes paid by these participants who obtain employment; whether it is 60 days and they have to come back to be retrained or a year, we are getting an $18 to $1 return. The earnings of persons with disabilities who participate in the program are four times greater than those who did not. I would like to see it eight times greater, but let us not trash the current system just because they do not like something. We cannot put cost-benefit analysis when we are dealing with disabled people, because we need to make sure we provide that service whether it is cost- effective or not.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, another colleague of ours wants to join me. I would like to answer our chairman's concern about the current system. He thinks that the sponsors claim the current system is so bad anything is preferable, not this bill. With that, I know our colleague from Massachusetts has to go to another markup.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, our chairman of the committee, and he is our chairman, mentioned that the Governors could not siphon this off, but I am looking at an amendment that would be part of the manager's amendment that allows the Government to appoint a board and develop a proposed plan for alternatives. States have traditionally provided for vocational rehab. In the State of Texas, in the State of South Carolina and a number of States, they have provided for it. The Federal funding is very limited. This amendment would allow for the Governor in an individual case, maybe if we include the legislature, to come in, but these decisions have already been made locally and would allow the Governor to create and have another revenue stream of Federal funding to do something else without necessarily going back to the legislature. If we want this to be a local control issue, we should give it to the legislature and the Governor to provide it by State law, instead of what is trying to be done in this amendment. There have been some allegations and concerns about who we represent when we work here on the floor. I have served 20 years in the legislature and worked with lots of not only provider groups, but recipients of vocational rehab services. They are the ones that are our big concern, that we deal with today, not with somebody's job in the State bureaucracy. I would hope that this bill, whether we do it here on the floor and adopt the Green amendment, or we do it in the conference committee and the Senate will hold firm on making sure vocational rehab does not get lost in a CAREERS reform bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I thank my ranking member. I have a particular concern about this bill, but I voted for it as it came out of committee. This bill makes dramatic steps in streamlining over 80 training programs and education programs. I believe almost every Member on both sides of our aisle wants the consolidation of these programs. I support the bill, as I said, when it came out of committee, with some reservations. This is probably the most bipartisan bill I have seen out of our Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities this year. However, the point of departure from that support is that there are no guarantees or assurances that people who have a history of being left out will continue to be served. Later today I will offer an amendment to title V of the bill. As it now stands, this bill threatens to undermine our existing State vocational rehab systems. I believe we can correct this problem with a bipartisan amendment. We are trying to work on it right now, but so far we are not there. The bill has been changed three times since it came out of our committee. In the last 10 days, there have been some changes. In fact, I know in the manager's amendment in a few minutes there are some suggested changes on voc rehab, but it does not go far enough. It does not go far to make sure that those people who particularly high cost vocational rehab recipients need those benefits and that revenues stream directly to them, not that it be siphoned off for some other program or some other proposal that an individual Governor has. I was glad to hear my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], talk about that there is going to be a legislative involvement in that. That is not in the manager's amendment. It may be when it comes up on the floor in a few minutes. I am glad there is an effort to do that. But, again, this bill has been out of committee for at least 2 months and has not changed until today to add the legislative involvement with the Governor. There are a great many provisions in the manager's amendment on voc rehab that concern me. It does not contain a mechanism for the State to control the quality and appropriateness of vocational rehab in local centers. This bill does not allow the States, and possibly a Governor could make this determination, that the local centers for vocational rehab would not be subject to quality and appropriateness of States services on a statewide basis. It would allow the local work force development board, whose members are not required to know anything about vocational rehab or the needs of the people, to provide guidance providing vocational rehab services. There is a great deal wrong with this bill on vocational rehab. If this bill passes, the Senate actually is the best issue, it leaves vocational rehab the way it is dealing with those people who hgave been served by a number of States, including Texas, a great deal for many years.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me address my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], and the concerns that he has. I think we share some of them because we both served in the legislature, and I agree with him that I like the idea of having these boards to be including recipients of the aid. Again, that is, I know, in a lot of our local States we require that anyway. But is that a requirement that should be sent down from Washington? Again, I know I have worked on that, as a legislator, to make sure the people who are subjected to the rules are the ones also involved in the process and serving on those boards. Let me go over some of the concerns I have about the specifics of the manager's amendment as it deals with vocational rehab. The proposed amendment would allow, again, the Governor to appoint a board which would develop a plan for allocation of vocational rehab funds between the State and local boards. Again, we may change that, and it may be allowing the legislative involvement. As the manager's amendment now stands, it is the Governor. The Governor would appoint the board to develop it. It, again, creates another layer of bureaucracy. Different States could choose to implement vocational rehab programs in different ways, which that is the benefit of it because, again in Texas and South Carolina, although I think we have similar systems, but they are just a little different, to meet the local needs of our States. Some will opt for an alternative approval, while others can offer the approach prescribed elsewhere in this bill, and again we could then lose the national concern. So, again, I think vocational rehab needs to be separated from this bill, like the Senate is doing, and deal with vocational rehab on its own. Our committee held no hearings specifically on title V, and again last Thursday we had the majority staff release the changes of the markup to the bill. Now we have the manager's amendment, and we have not spent the time we need to on something as important as vocational rehab, that instead of just today and maybe the last few days, it should be as a separate piece of legislation. I think my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, and I could agree on a great deal of things as long as we do not lump people who are vocational rehab recipients in with the general population. Our State and a number of States for 50 years have contributed and made an effort to deal with vocational rehab and to provide funding for it, and they do not particularly want to see Washington come in and say, ``Well, we can do it better.'' I am concerned this bill may provide that guidance, and maybe set up a two-tier system, from what some States may be doing, and depending on what the Governor may decide to do, whether it is included in the legislation or not. This amendment would not address other problems that are in the full bill regarding vocational rehab services. Paragraph 105(B)(2)(d) of title V would continue to make the service plan optional, thereby removing program accountability for the direction and quality of the services. Again, we are on the floor of the House in Washington, DC, but the real people who need to know about this legislation, on the streets and in the facilities in Houston, TX and around this country, we want to make sure they are receiving that quality that they may not get if we pass this bill and this manager's amendment today. This bill would continue to not contain any mechanism for the States to control the quality and appropriateness of those vocational rehab services. That is why, again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposing the manager's amendment, and later on today we will have an amendment to title V that will strike title V and include and ask that vocational rehab be separated so we can get on to reforming our job training for everyone and not having vocational rehab recipients lost in this process, because that is my concern and that is the concern of a number of the groups who have been the beneficiaries of these services for many years.