[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 143 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11793-H11794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important this 
evening to be able to set the Record straight. I am glad that my 
colleagues were able to individually really focus us on why we are 
here. I am here; but, frankly, I will be in my district tomorrow, 
because the real solution to this problem presented itself on late 
Monday evening, Sunday night, Monday day of last week, when there was a 
real agreement that would have brought us to the conclusion of this 
session.
  It is interesting that over the course of debate that we have heard 
this evening, we have heard someone talk about taxes in upstate New 
York, not relevant to the American people, dealing with bringing 
closure to the appropriations process and ensuring that the government 
can run.
  We saw some Members of this House present a map to talk about where 
the President of the United States, the commander in chief is and other 
Members of this House, none of that relevant. It has nothing to do with 
the negotiations process. All of this is dilatory tactics led by the 
Republican majority to press their points.
  One of the leaders of the Republican majority said we are not going 
to let them go home because they will spend the weekend demagoguing and 
talking about trying to take back the House when we know that they will 
not. Those are not words from Democrats, those are Republican words.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would like us to resolve this. Let me tell 
you why. Rushing to the airport today to get back for one vote, of 
course, I thought the Everglades vote would be on the floor tonight, 
but unfortunately, it is not. I support it and would have looked 
forward to voting for it and will vote in the Record when I return, if 
I am so elected, that I would have supported it, but on rushing to the 
airport, I stopped by a senior citizen center and spoke to senior 
citizens. I am sorry I did not have more time, but, obviously, I had to 
get back to Washington for important deliberations of which I hoped 
that I would have been able to participate in and to secure a vote for 
the future of our great Nation.
  I told those senior citizens that we were still trying to work on 
answering the question why health maintenance organizations, insurance 
companies, HMOs were closing up in cities and States across the Nation.

                              {time}  1945

  I did not have much time to talk to those seniors, some of them with 
a number of ailments, some of them confused about why their HMOs 
closed. But on that very note, they applauded. They wished me well. 
They said, we know you have to get back to the airport.
  That is what we are fighting for, a distinction between giving $34 
billion to HMOs versus giving monies to hospitals in rural and urban 
centers to keep their doors open, and giving the $34 billion to HMOs 
with no accountability whatsoever.
  What that means is that we can give them the money to recoup what 
they say are their losses; but the minute they receive their paycheck, 
they can immediately close up in Iowa City; Detroit, Michigan; Houston, 
Texas; New York, New York; Atlanta, Georgia, and leave seniors in a 
lurch. This is what this debate is about.
  So the Republican majority can get up and talk all day about work, 
work, work. I will not be here. I will be in my district tomorrow, 
because there is no work. Frankly, I believe if we had work, we would 
have had the Labor-HHS bill, just as we have heard our colleagues say, 
the negotiators, negotiated the resolve of this bill.
  They had an agreement on education funding. They had an agreement 
dealing with school construction. They had an agreement on Medicare. 
But, yet, the special interests took control. The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and others said we cannot deal with those workplace safety 
rules. Frankly, I also spoke to my constituents about that.
  We use these large terms, ``workplace safety.'' Do my colleagues know 
what we are fighting about? How many of us have had the carpal tunnel 
syndrome,

[[Page H11794]]

where one cannot move the hand? One might be on the computer or word 
processing or playing the piano, but one may be able to continue to 
work.
  But the factory workers who get this syndrome cannot continue to 
pluck the feathers off a chicken or put the machine parts together. 
They cannot continue their work.
  The only thing we have asked for is that rules will be implemented 
after the next President is elected. They squashed it, stomped on it, 
and said no way. Millions of Americans suffer with this syndrome.
  We have been fighting for 3 or 4 years to get these kind of workplace 
safety rules so that these people who are on this kind of income 
working in factories in America would have some kind of protection.
  But we blew up the last bill, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, 
primarily because of that issue. Then of course we have heard all the 
characterization of immigrants. We are trying to provide opportunity 
for access to legalization of immigrants who are already in this 
country working, paying taxes, owning homes, and having children going 
to school. This is not a blanket amnesty. This is where we messed up, 
Mr. Speaker.
  So to set the record straight, some of us are going home to work. We 
are going to wait on the Republicans until they find out that we are 
really working for Americans and get the job done.

                          ____________________