Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I believe strongly that I have represented the district that I was elected in as well or better than any previous elected official. I have answered mail. I have never referred to my constituents as ``you people.'' I have been responsive. I have not just sent form letters. I have researched the issues. And I try very hard to come before them to listen. I have learned a lot by listening.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. The second time around.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the National Highway System is finally being approved. This bill will create for America in the 21st century what the interstate system has done for America in the 20th century. As a Texan sitting on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am particularly supportive of this legislation because it recognizes the importance of Interstate 35 as a high-priority corridor. I-35 is the only interstate in our Nation that connects Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I-35 is particularly vital to my home of Dallas and the entire State of Texas because it serves as our main corridor of trade with Mexico. With the passage of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] in 1993, trade with Mexico is expected to double by the end of the century and quadruple between the United States and Mexico within the next 25 years. The responsibility of Congress did not end with that historic vote. Passage of the NHS is a continuation of developing an infrastructure that maximizes the benefits of this agreement. The NHS represents some of our Nation's most heavily traveled byways, containing 40 percent of total vehicle travel and 75 percent of heavy truck travel. More importantly to anyone who travels our roads, the NHS means safety for travelers. Improvement of shoulders, controlled access, and divided lanes will help reduce accidents and fatalities. However, while the focus of this legislation is to designate the NHS, it also has many provisions with which I do not agree. Unfortunately, this bill would repeal the Federal speed limit and allow States to have no speed limit at all if they wished. It would effectively repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement for individuals under the age of 18. I believe that these provisions seriously threaten our Nation's highway safety. I support this bill simply because it will bring the State of Texas approximately $455,792,000 and identifies 13,389 miles which will be the top priority miles for America as we move into the next century. [[Page H 13324]]

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the Republicans' Balanced Budget Act for fiscal year 1996. The Republican budget is a noncaring budget, it has no compassion for the American people and is one that the American people cannot be proud of. It not only balances the budget on the back of the disenfranchised, the measure is nonresponsive to the housing, health, education, environment, and employment training needs of the American people. The Republicans' budget reconciliation holds our elderly hostage to their compromised health care condition and economic status, we need a budget that treats the elderly with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve--but have earned. We need adequate funding that provides for the older Americans' programs including essential nutrition programs, low-income home-energy assistance, and assisted housing. And of course we must ensure that Medicare is preserved. The lives of more than 2 million Medicare seniors in Texas would be dramatically impacted, and by the year 2002 each Medicare senior in Texas would be asked to pay an additional $1,122 out-of-pocket expenses. Each would be forced to pay $4,000 more for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to make up for the cuts. We want the future to be free but not on the backs of seniors and those most vulnerable. The Republicans' budget proposal which forces our elderly to choose between food and heat, does not improve their quality of life. We need a budget that is kind to our Nation's children including those yet to be born. And one that provides adequate funding for healthy start, child care, and Head Start. Our children are our future. They have placed their future in our hands, we cannot sacrifice the trust. In addition, we need a budget that strengthens support for higher education, student aid, trio, education for the disadvantaged, school reform, biomedical research, and community infrastructure. I have heard the voice of the American people and they want us to respond with a sound budget that is fair, responsible, and overturns the Republicans' assault on our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--the children, the elderly, the veterans, and hard-working families.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation sponsored by my Texas colleague, Representative John Bryant, to require lobbyists to register with the House and Senate and make conforming changes to the Rules of the House of Representatives with regard to restrictions on gifts given by lobbyists. In light of my support of this legislation, I have agreed to sign a discharge petition to bring this legislation to the floor of the House for consideration. In the past, I have not signed discharge petitions. It is my belief that such devices are generally harmful to the legislative process, as they call for the avoidance of the committee system which serves our Government well. However, because of the majority's disdain for that very process, and the lack of consideration given to the attempts to bring the legislation before the appropriate committees for action, this extreme step has become necessary. Therefore, I will add my name to those seeking to bring the legislation before the House. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I have added my name as a cosponsor to House Resolution 264, legislation sponsored by Republican Representative Burton. This bill, which I hope will be up for a vote this week on the floor of the House, would require greater disclosure of gifts given to Members of Congress. I support the bill as a bipartisan solution to the need for comprehensive gift legislation. Under the Burton bill, Members are required to disclose all gifts and meals received which are worth more than $50. The bill makes other appropriate changes to the Rules of the House regarding this issue.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Whitfield amendment. I have heard much of the debate and I know that change is on the horizon, and I am not opposed to change. But I think that as we make the change, we ought to consider that we are manipulating the lives of people. This is all about people who have worked. This is all about protecting those persons who have not sat around and waited for us to give them something, but people who have been on jobs, people who are losing their proetction within the jobs. We understand change. The Whitfield amendment eliminates labor protection for all class 3 railroad labor transactions, whether it is purchasing another short line, or merging several class 3 railroads. The new ICC may not provide for labor protection. The amendment eliminates 6 years of labor protection when class 2 railroad purchases a short line or merges with a small railroad. Employees who lose their jobs get a 1 year severance, if they have the seniority to earn it. The amendment does not affect H.R. 2539 with respect to large class 1 railroads. Unfortunately, H.R. 2539 is about much more than the sale of short lines and the imposition of labor protection. It would allow a Federal agency to break privately negotiated collective bargaining agreements when two railroads merge, railroads with up to $250 million of annual revenue. In return, the employees would have no protection of any kind. No Federal agency has this extraordinary power. The amendment would counterbalance the power of the Federal agency to break collective bargaining agreements with the requirement that employees be treated fairly with up to one year severance pay. It is simply unfair to allow a Federal agency the authority to break private collective bargaining agreements without any protections for the workers, the people who have kept it going. The Whitfield amendment prohibits the new ICC from using its power over small railroad mergers to shift work from a union to a nonunion railroad. The Whitfield amendment is a sensible compromise. It is about protecting people, people, working people. Mr. Chairman, I would ask all of us to support the workers.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to dialogue 5 minutes with my colleague. Would my colleague continue her remarks?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Clearly, this has been a long- time strategy; one that I really could not believe that we would have persons in the kind of responsible positions as we have planning this shutdown longer than 6 months ago, planning to ramrod unpopular ideas and policies that will hurt the majority of the American people in simple resolutions, simply because we have not completed our work. If these are policies that ought to stand, they ought to stand without being loaded into these simple resolutions. We should be able to work those out. We should be able to allow the resolutions to go forward clean, and then come to the negotiating table. This is simply a technique, in my opinion, to pull the President into a fight, where he has clearly stated that using the proper procedure for negotiating is acceptable, but he will not be hoodwinked into attempting to negotiating by allowing these higher premiums to go in and all these protections to be removed from our air, food, and water.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I served in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate, and I have never been in a position where I could say that I did everything the way I wanted it to be done, but what I can say is that everyone had an opportunity to be heard, to call witnesses, and then there was a fair vote. Very, very frequently, I got a part of what I wanted, others got parts of what they wanted. But in the end, it was a piece that was made up of input and one that we could say that a clear majority wanted. It was called compromising, negotiating, agreeing, and then a majority win. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that will work in any deliberative body, but without that, it cannot. Here I am not even sure we are listening, because poll after poll, and then finally last week's local elections, have demonstrated the growing level of opposition to the Medicare and Medicaid cuts and the education cuts, which are not popular, but no one is listening. This budget is being held hostage in order to impose higher Medicare premiums on seniors. This is not what the public wants. This is a body of, by, and for the people. This is a democracy, but nobody is listening; at least the ones who are trying to ram their ideas through are really not listening. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Republicans really are interested in negotiating, despite these weak complaints about the Democrats. The Republican leadership has demonstrated no sincere interest in negotiating. If there was interest in negotiating, we would use the proper procedures. We would simply not load up these simple resolutions with all of the legislation for the entire session to be in them. It is not fair. It is not right. It is not according to anyone's procedure. It is heavy-handed. It is insulting, and it is ignoring the wishes of the American people.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I do not know, but I can tell my colleague there has been a lot of them. And we have had a lot more votes. We have worked a whole lot more hours and a lot longer days than we worked the session before, but we were completed with our business on time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I think what the American people are reacting to is the extremism, the extremes which these bills contain, and that is why we are having such difficulty bringing them to finality. When we decide that our children need no protection in the water or in the food or the air, and our seniors or working families or any of the American people, that is extreme.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, of course the bills are due by midnight September 30, because the new fiscal year starts October 1. Clearly, that has not been done. Yet, the votes are here in this body for the Speaker to get his will, but they have not passed.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I do think it is extreme when we decide that our senior citizens must pay, even against the American people's will, much more now for their premiums when it really is not necessary except to give that tax break that has been promised for the most wealthy people of the Nation.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentlewoman from Florida that this is a plan that has been of long standing and of long coming. If we check back through the papers, on April 3, in the Washington Times, Mr. Gingrich boasted that the President will veto a number of things and then we will put them all on the debt ceiling, and then he will decide how big a crisis he wants. Now, that is April 3, back when he stated that the strategy was to create a titanic legislative standoff with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to a must-pass legislation, increasing the national debt ceiling. I am not sure that that is anything that just started today or the last 24 or 48 hours. That has been the plan for a long time. Then June 5, in Time magazine, Mr. Gingrich was quoted as saying, ``He can run the parts of the government,'' speaking of the President, ``that are left after the Republican budget cuts or he can run no government. Which of the two of us do you think worries more about government not showing up?'' Now, that is the message that Mr. Gingrich was sending to a number of senior citizens and to a number of children and working families, and that was in Time magazine June 5. Then, in the Washington Post on September 22, the stated, ``I do not care what the price is, I do not care if we have no Executive offices and no bonds for 30 days. Not this time.'' I do not think that is responsible, but I am quoting that directly from these publications.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the many accomplishments of the Reverend Doctor Caesar Arthur Walter Clark, pastor of the Good Street Missionary Baptist Church in Dallas, TX. There are many milestones in our lives by which we can mark the significance of our works. Most are directly influenced by the people with whom we come in contact. Rarely are we privileged to have someone like the Reverend Doctor Caesar A.W. Clark influence our lives so richly and so deeply. Dr. Clark this year celebrates 65 years in the pulpit. He has led the Good Street Baptist Church congregation for 45 of those years. Those years were enhanced by a wealth of religious, academic, civic, and community service involvement. He has mentored hundreds of younger preachers. He is a much-in-demand evangelist who is constantly called upon to preach the gospel across this Nation and beyond. His ageless wisdom expands the globe. Twice Dr. Clark has been cited by Ebony Magazine as one of the Nation's 15 greatest black preachers. He is considered the dean of preachers by many pastors, ministers, and laity as well, who marvel continually at the power of his messages and the depth of his theology. Pastor Clark is a quiet, generous, and warm-spirited person whose keen insight serves to bring sharp focus to many of the perplexing issues of our times. The Louisiana native credits his mother with giving him the tenacity to stay in school and the fortitude to continue in the church through the many difficult early years out of Shreveport. Born December 15, 1914, Reverend Clark is an only child who began preaching at age 13. Reverend Clark left school prior to graduation to work full time on his family's farm. With his mother's strong determination deeply instilled in him, he returned to school and earned a bachelor's degree from Bishop College, then in Marshall. TX. Along with an honorary degree from Bishop, he has received numerous other earned and honorary degrees. Dr. Clark's ability as a mediator is without parallel. He brings moderation and even-mindedness to the most hotly contested situations. When he speaks, others really do listen. Dr. Caesar Clark is indeed one of the Nation's most outstanding religious scholars. His reputation as a theologian when combined with his oratorical abilities make him a continually sought-after speaker and teacher. His keen talent, special skills, and generous nature have caused him to excel at his craft and have taken him many miles from his birthplace in Clarence, a town in Natchitoches Parish, LA. Reverend Clark's awards and accolades from officials, organizations, and citizen groups large and small fill walls and volumes. He has been cited by communities and elected bodies across America. In his honor, a portion of the street where the Good Street Church is located has been named Dr. C.A.W. Clark Plaza by the Dallas City Council. He is respected and loved. Currently, he is president of the Baptist Missionary and Education Convention of Texas. Previously, he has served in many elected and appointed positions with the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc., the 115-year-old organization that is home for more than 8 million African- American Baptists. Reverend Clark preached his first sermon on the fourth Sunday in April 1928. He was first called to serve as pastor of the Little Union Baptist Church in Shreveport. Today, as shepherd of the Good Street Church, Dr. Clark leads a congregation known for its generosity and service to the community. The more than 2,000-member church operates a variety of programs for young people, families, and the elderly including a 332-unit low-income housing complex, a social service center, and two child care facilities. The church has a credit union with assets of nearly $2 million. Its enthusiastic and longtime support of foreign missions has led the Good Street Church to build a sister Good Street Church in Vrede, South Africa. Dr. Clark's rich and productive history make him an integral and valuable part of Texas and [[Page E 2117]] national religious life. In the days ahead, his value as a leader becomes all the more important to the religious community as it must be capable of meeting the increasing challenges presented by generations of African-Americans who are seeking to revitalize their spiritual resources. Dr. Clark is a visionary and a quintessential leader whose rare blend of innate biblical knowledge and scholarship makes him well suited for the many challenges that are routine occurrences in our society. Although he has a lengthy list of awards and accomplishments, Dr. Clark is most proud of the young people who have come to Christ because of his inspiration and teaching. We are pleased that the Reverend Doctor Caesar Arthur Walter Clark resides in Texas's 30th Congressional District. Furthermore, I am proud of his many deeds and milestones as a pastor, an evangelist, a leader, and a citizen. I wholeheartedly offer commendations in recognition of his 65 years as an outstanding preacher and pastor. Today, I join members of the clergy, church members, Dallas citizens, and others to show appreciation and to acknowledge the many contributions and achievements by Dr. Clark, a man well worthy of praise.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, H.R. 2425. The Republican leadership is constantly saying ``trust us'' when it comes to deep cuts in Medicare. Yet, the Republicans can't even keep their word about hearings, and we're supposed to trust them about what they have in store for our doctors, our hospitals, and our senior citizens. Republicans are cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich and special interests. They can call it whatever they like, but it's still a cut and it will be paid for by one of our most vulnerable populations, seniors. The bill makes the most sweeping changes in the Medicare Program since its establishment in 1965. For 30 years, Medicare has helped to assure that older and disabled Americans get the health care they need, while lessening the burden on families who might otherwise be responsible for paying the medical bills of ailing parents and grandparents. Under the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, the elderly will be forced to make choices between paying for health care and paying their heating bills. Hospitals, dependent on Medicare revenue will be forced to significantly cut back service or close altogether, leaving countless rural residents miles from health care facilities. Community economies will falter as hospitals close, laying off workers and making it more difficult to attract new economic development. Do I want to improve Medicare? Yes. Should we continue to look for efficiencies in this program? By all means. But not at the expense of unnecessary increased costs, fewer benefits, loss of choices, and lower quality medical care for our senior citizens and for disabled people to whom we made the promise of Medicare 30 years ago.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield further, I did not hear the specific language, if he would just point that out to me.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. What is the objection to the language in this amendment?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield further, could I just follow up with one final question? Let me give an example of what one of my concerns might be. In my area, there is an environmental area contaminated with lead. It has been there for a while. Years ago, where the standards were at one point, they are very different now. Tests have been done by some of the Federal agencies and a medical school and the results were differently interpreted. But when put by a standard that had been developed by process and updating of information, they had to be brought together. No agency other than NIST could have done this with authority and neutral information. If we do not allow for updating, we will waste money because we are developing technologies to simplify it all the time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise on behalf of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Science Committee has included in the report language which accompanies this bill health care language which could not be further from the truth. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has not proposed to expand into the development preventive technologies. Rather, NIST has proposed to increase by $2 million the amount it would spend to establish accurate medical measurements to assist with improving our Nation's health care. This is not a new area for NIST. The institute has been providing this service for decades. Those in the health care community recognize that NIST is the ultimate authority on literally thousands of measurements which bring certainty to the practice of medicine in this country. Without NIST, there would be no way to guarantee that a blood pressure or cholesterol measurement performed in Boston would be the same as one taken in Dallas, TX. For example, Cellmark, the Nation's leader in DNA sciences, has stated that it would go out of business if it could not rely on NIST standards. The work done by NIST in this area is not duplicative of work done by other agencies. To put it bluntly, other agencies neither understand nor perform this type of important medical work. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the report language seeks to forbid NIST from participating in the development of environmental technologies, by stating that the work of NIST is duplicative of the work done by other agencies. NIST has a proven record of providing measurements and reference materials which are the basis of many environmental technology areas. For example, NIST has been involved in the development of standards for refrigerants and other chemicals covered by the Montreal Protocol. This process affects over $300 billion of refrigeration equipment in the United States. The programs at NIST are not being carried out by other agencies. DOE and NSF are unable to perform the type of standard-setting work that goes on at NIST. NIST deals with measurements, standards, reference data and test methods. No other agency has this role. NIST provides the quality assurance for measurements which are made by other government agencies. For example, NIST enables other companies and agencies to measure low levels of chemical concentrations by providing more than 200 different environmental reference materials that allow more accurate measurement of pollutants in air, water and soil. Importantly, NIST does not establish or enforce regulatory standards. The role of NIST is to ensure that these activities are based on sound science and accurate measurements. In sum, Mr. Chairman, the work being performed by NIST in the crucial areas of health care and environmental technology is of a critical nature, and is work that NIST is uniquely qualified to perform. The amendment before us today will allow NIST to continue this important work, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the question I would like to ask is just for the gentleman to point out to me the specific language that he is referring to, because my intent is to just allow them to, where the gentleman says development, is to keep current on standards. Many things can be changed and updated and reformed for more efficiency, but the standards do not remain current in certain activities. They have to be updated because we have the technology to improve it.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentlewoman will yield, I really wonder who the Republicans are listening to, and I would like to hear later from members of that committee. Because as I am reading, a Republican Congressman the gentleman from Iowa, Dr. Greg Ganske, from the Des Moines Register, said, I guarantee you that these reductions will be bad for quality health care. Not just for our senior citizens, but also for working families. If Medicare and Medicaid cuts are too deep, hospitals and doctors will shy away from serving the elderly and poor or will try to push costs to the non- elderly, which could further increase the number of uninsured, or the quality of the whole health care system could decline. Now, that is a Member of this body, who is a Republican and who is also a doctor. Then from the New York Times, the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons said today that the Republican proposals would reduce Medicare payments for all surgical services by 10 to 12 percent next year. Cynthia Brown, manager of the College's Washington office, said these cuts would heavily penalize surgeons. Maybe that is who they might be listening to, just the persons on the money-making end. I have high regard for any physician that is attempting to practice good medicine. But I do not believe that even the physicians want to make it uncomfortable for our seniors and rob them of quality care just for a paycheck. Now, according to a poll that was done by Lou Harris & Associates this month, 86 percent of wealthy Americans oppose Medicare cuts to pay for the tax breaks. Americans across the board overwhelmingly oppose using Medicare as a cash cow to pay for the [[Page H 10033]] Republican plan to offer tax breaks to the very wealthy. A recently released Harris poll suggests that the opposition is even stronger among the wealthiest Americans. When the question was asked ``Do you favor or oppose cutting the future costs of Medicare to pay for a tax break,'' 86 percent of Americans with income of $50,000 or more said they did not favor doing this, while only 83 percent of all Americans said they opposed the plan to cut services for our children and our senior citizens for a tax break for the wealthy. While the tax break for the wealthy is being given attention, the tax break for the working poor has been taken away. It seems to me that we are not listening. Perhaps there are persons inside listening only to selective voices, but they are not listening to the majority of Americans, and this is a body that is of, by, and for the people. So who are we hearing these quotes from? Selected persons that are making statements we all agree with, or from those persons that simply want to make a plea for the health of their future, and they get arrested? They are proposing medical savings accounts. Well, we are talking about 80 percent of these people that have worked all of their working days paying into Social Security with the promise and the contract that when they retire and reach their days on a fixed income, they would have available to them a fund that they have paid into for health care. While Medicaid was essentially passed as a program for our children, almost 70 percent of those dollars are being paid for long-term care for our seniors. And why is that? It is because our seniors do not have the money now. They are very stretched with what is being offered, and we are about to swipe that away from them. Who are we listening to? Are we the only persons listening to the people of this Nation? I am hearing desperate voices. Why are the Republicans not listening? Because the polls are not made up by us, it is an independent poll. And I hear the question, we want to save our children's future. Well, if we want to save our children's future, they must have a healthy present. If we do not provide for our children just the basic health care, they will not have a good future. They are being cheated out of the dollars even set aside for them now, because most of it by necessity is going for the care of our senior citizens. I want to know who, who are the Republicans listening to. They are not listening to America.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. You know, another factor is that one of the ways that has been traditionally used to cut health care costs is early discharge from hospitals. And when we see early discharge, we also see people a little bit sicker going home. When they go home, they will need Meals on Wheels, they will need an aide perhaps coming in. Saving the Medicare dollar we would think would put a focus on how important it is not to cut Medicaid so severely. Medicaid takes care of the Meals on Wheels, it assists them in transportation for the handy-rise to get to the doctors' offices so they can remain at home and not be institutionalized, and it also provides for the Meals on Wheels, and often the only hot meal that the ones confined to their home get a day. But that too is being cut. All of us know that at least 67 to 70 percent of the Medicaid dollar goes for those senior citizens for long-term care. That is all a part of it. So, really, it is a gimmick. It is not a method to offer the care. It is a method to turn the care away. It is a gimmick to force seniors out of hospital care, out of home care, just to say they are saving the program. This is not saving the program. To subject people to a system, the best health care in the world available, to not having it is not saving the system. It is simply ignoring the fact that almost 20 percent of this population needs this care on a day-to-day basis, and they have said we do not need this population to get these dollars, we must give it to the rich. Those are the ones that are more likely to show that they are getting it. It is not popular, it seems, to help the poor, to help the elderly, to help the shut-in. It is much more popular to say I promised a tax cut to the wealthy and I am going to deliver it. I do not think this is America.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they know about it. From what I understand, they do not even know about it.