Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member not only for yielding to me, but also for her call a couple of weeks ago. And I want to thank our colleague from Lubbock, Texas. We have a lot of water we can send to west Texas, but appreciate the support not just from Texas, but all across the country. People are coming in everywhere. And I see me colleague, Brian Babin, who is my neighbor. We are not Democrats and Republicans; we are Americans. And that is what we are seeing. And our Speaker pro tempore of the House, also, is neighbor to both of us. But I rise in support of the hundreds of thousands of victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston and Harris County and throughout Texas, and I call on Congress to immediately pass emergency funding to help victims from this unprecedented disaster. Our district is in northeast and southeast Houston and Harris County. We are familiar with hurricanes and tropical storms. We were hit by Tropical Storm Allison in 2001, hit by Hurricane Ike in 2008. Harvey's disaster and destruction is beyond anything witnessed in living memory in Texas, flooding over 100,000 homes in Harris County alone and killing at least 60 people, including 12 innocent victims in our district. Countless lives in Houston and along the Gulf Coast have been put on hold: families who cannot return to their flooded homes, children whose schools were damaged, mothers and fathers who cannot go back to work. I have a school district in northeast Harris County, Sheldon ISD. They have eight schools. Four of those schools are so damaged they can't be reopened. Houstonians and Texans are proud and independent people. We take pride in our can-do attitude, as witnessed by our brave first responders and countless volunteers who rescued neighbors during the worst of the flooding. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this critical emergency funding that will help the people of Houston and Texas on the road to recovery. But this is not the only time we will need this emergency funding. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article in Monday's Houston Chronicle on the dedication of our doctors and public health workers at the Texas Medical Center in Houston during the worst of Harvey. [From the Houston Chronicle] My 60-Hour Shift in the ER During Hurricane Harvey (By Benjamin Gold) I was on call at St. Luke's when the major flooding began. I decided to stay in the hospital, along with many other residents, attendings, nurses and support staff. It turns out that a hospital is a fantastic place to be in a crisis--it has food, water, electricity, even Wi-Fi. I ended up staying there until Monday, taking shifts with other residents as we watched over our patients. We even saw some new ones who somehow managed to make their way through floodwaters to the emergency room. Here are some of the things I saw during those 60 hours. I saw nurses working for almost 20 hours straight and managing way more patients than usual, refusing to leave them--they didn't know when the next nurses would arrive. I saw the cafeteria transformed into a support station with round-the-clock free meals. The lunch tables transformed into war rooms as the various medical departments strategized about how to staff the hospital despite being desperately under capacity. I got meals from the same cafeteria worker-- Anne--on Friday night, Saturday morning, Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Monday morning. I saw patients placed in impossible circumstances. One, a young man with a son in the ICU at Texas Children's, recently heard that his house had flooded. He was having high fevers and coughing up yellow sputum. His chest X-ray showed he had developed a lobar pneumonia. He was pale and clammy, with bloodshot eyes. ``Doc, I need go,'' he told me. ``I have to see my son. I have to call my wife and make sure she's safe. I can't stay here.'' I was in the ICU when an impromptu meeting was held to discuss the fact that no relief would be able to come in for the foreseeable future. There were only two attendings, each taking 12-hour shifts so the other could sleep. They'd already been working for 48 hours. Midway through one of the shifts, one of the sleeping ICU doctors woke up and asked the active doctor if he was OK. ``I'm cruising,'' he said, smiling. He was bleary-eyed and weary, but it didn't matter. ``I'm rolling,'' he said and gave a thumbs-up. ``I'm good to go.'' My fiancee, who also is a doctor, told me that one of her patients wanted to meet me after they found out that their doctor had a significant other in the hospital. ``Sure,'' I said, and went over to the room. They were so appreciative of her care that they invited us to go fishing with them in Corpus Christi when this was all over. ``I'm telling you, you've never seen a more beautiful place to fish your entire life. You'll stay with us, of course! It won't cost you a penny.'' The man took out his iPhone and showed us pictures of a gorgeous coastline, Texas-sized sunsets and smiling nephews proudly holding up fish as big as they were. ``We'll make it down there,'' he said. ``We'll get through this.'' Finally, on Monday morning, the first wave of relief arrived, and those whose houses hadn't flooded and had clear streets were able to go home. Others weren't so lucky. The Texas Medical Center is what brought me to Houston. It has more medical schools, hospitals and nursing facilities per square foot than any other place on earth. It was incredible to see the resiliency, camaraderie and selflessness of those who work there in a crisis. Learning about what to do in a crisis is standard in medical education. But to see it in action, to see people refusing to leave until they knew their patients would be cared for, is something else entirely. It's been a grim few days, and the worst is not over. We don't know how many more casualties there might be. Untold billions in property damage has already been done. But Houstonians showed their true colors over this past weekend. I've never been prouder to be a Texan.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Jesus Contreras, who as a DACAmented paramedic worked 6 days straight after Hurricane Harvey. Jesus rescued people from flood waters and transported them to local hospitals. Jesus deserves our support.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, the Drug Quality and Security Act was passed in 2013 in response to the multistate fungal meningitis outbreak that occurred due to contaminated compounded drug products from the New England Compounding Center. Drugs from a single facility in one state were shipped nationwide, over 750 patients were affected, and 64 patients died in 20 states across the country. DQSA (D-Q-S-A) helps ensure that if compounders are shipping drugs nationwide, they are doing so from states that exercise meaningful oversight. This is an important patient safety protection in the law. This amendment would weaken FDA's ability to implement this important patient protection legislation by denying FDA funding to finalize the Memorandum of Understanding Congress mandated FDA develop. Congress must not forget the tragedy that happened just 5 years ago by turning back the clock and remove the protections Congress itself put in place to prevent another outbreak. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Rep. Carter.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Senate Republican majority failed to pass their ACA repeal. This is a win for the people across America who wrote letters, made phone calls, and organized communities against this disastrous bill. Mr. Speaker, millions of people rely on insurance expansion made possible under the ACA. Our job is not to harm the people we serve but to make their lives better. Under every single Republican healthcare bill, millions of people would lose health coverage. There are many steps we can take together. Let us strengthen the risk pools, promote competition among insurers, and require States to expand their Medicaid programs. These steps will help lower premiums, increase choice, and allow 50,000 individuals in my district and millions of low-income Americans across the country to get insurance. My constituents are tired of the partisanship. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to work with us and each other instead of against each other so everyday Americans do not grow even more cynical of our governing institutions. While the failure of TrumpCare is welcome news, now is the time to hold public hearings, bipartisan meetings, and work toward goals that reduce premiums, deductibles, and healthcare costs for American people. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to build on the ACA and improve the law.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3364. I rise in support of the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, to strengthen sanctions against Russia, North Korea, and Iran. These sanctions have been a long time coming. Russian aggression towards the United States and our allies is at a level not seen since the Cold War. Although you wouldn't know it from the conduct of our president, Russia is unparalleled in its willingness to use illicit ``active measures'' to try to weaken the rules-based international order that has benefited the world for decades. Although the techniques in many ways aren't new--we saw similar tactics during the Cold War--the power of social media and the Internet have only amplified Russia's capabilities. It's thought that Russia has been behind the hacking of the attempted hacking of campaigns, infrastructure systems, and government entities in many of our European allies, including Denmark, France, Georgia, the Netherlands, Germany, Ukraine, and Estonia. In Ukraine, Russia is thought to be behind a power blackout in 2015. Many of Russia's attempts have failed, but in Russia's influence campaign in the 2016 presidential election, it was partially successful. Russia and its government-backed hackers have undermined the integrity of our democratic processes and our system of representative government, the foundation of our country, since its inception. It may not have succeeded in changing the outcome of the election, but it has accomplished one of its goals, to sow discord and mistrust in an already-divided country. We must not let it accomplish its other aims. President Trump has often seemed more admiring of Vladimir Putin and Russian officials than he has of his own country. In many cases, he's been friendlier to the Russian government than to his own advisors. As president, astonishingly, he's talked about a joint cyber-security task force with our biggest cyber adversary. This bill is a crucial step in ensuring that we make clear to Russia that we will not accept the meddling of foreign governments in our democratic processes or the endangerment or intimidation of our allies and our people. We must make sure that Russia is not emboldened by our president's apparent determination to improve relations with Russia at any cost, and that it does not continue to endanger our democracy, our infrastructure, or our allies. Make no mistake--Russia poses a huge threat to the United States. If the U.S. government fails to respond, Ukraine's power blackout should serve as a warning of what is to come, to ignore at our peril. Russia's appetite for cyber and information warfare and its willingness to employ criminals and malicious hackers forsworn by other countries make it especially dangerous. We must protect our people and our infrastructure, and this bill makes sure that Congress has the ability to do that.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member for yielding to me. I rise in opposition to funding for President Trump's border wall. I have visited the border of Texas and Mexico many times. Communities all along and beyond the border in my home State of Texas are opposed to this border wall. Texas has deep and historic ties with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. The people of Texas and Mexico share a pride. A clear majority of our communities believe that the close ties between Texas and Mexico--cultural, economic, linguistic--benefit both Texas and Mexico. The construction of this ``big, fat, beautiful wall,'' to quote President Trump, along a 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border is not only unnecessary, but would be harmful to our border communities and wildlife and natural habitats along the border, and become a symbol of spite and division toward Mexico and its people. Much of the border between the United States and Mexico is already separated by the Rio Grande River, a clear natural obstacle between the two countries. High traffic areas along our Southern border are further separated by over 650 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fencing currently on the border. Congress has provided the Department of Homeland Security with robust funding since the Department's creation to sharply increase the number of Border Patrol officers and surveillance tools, including aerial drones along the border. As a result of these substantial investments by the American people, the number of immigrants without authorization has steadily declined, while the number of border apprehensions are near a 40-year low. The $1.6 billion funded by taxpayer dollars included in this legislation for the President's border wall should be directed for genuine needs, like expanding education opportunities for our children, rebuilding our Nation's aging infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, if given the opportunity, to amend the legislation before this Chamber to remove the border wall funding. Otherwise, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing the minibus appropriations bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, recently, we learned the Trump administration has diverted taxpayer funds allocated for the enrollment in the Affordable Care Act activities to create social media videos and content claiming that the Affordable Care Act is failing, a deliberate act of sabotage. Instead of making sure Americans remain healthy and improve the risk pool, the HHS is peddling online propaganda to discourage enrollment and health insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the ACA markets are stabilized, and there is simply no evidence of death spirals or collapsing markets. According to reliable polls, over 50 percent of the American people are in support of the Affordable Care Act. That is real news. The President has repeatedly declared that he would let the ACA fail just to score political points. It is unbelievable that a sitting President would wish catastrophic harm on his own people, but, unfortunately, that is what is happening. Colleagues, the ACA is not failing on its own. It is being actively sabotaged by the President and our Republican Congress. The administration has repeatedly wavered in its responsibility to administer cost-sharing reduction payments, relaxed enforcement of the insurance mandate, and refused to help State governments shore up their own healthcare exchanges. The majority and the Trump administration should quit playing politics with our healthcare system.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Senate has failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA. As the President said: Healthcare is hard. As Democrats, we didn't receive Republican votes to pass the ACA, but it is the law of the land. Our job as Members of Congress is to fix laws that are not effective. Let's work as Members of Congress not to do a Republican fix or a Democratic fix. Let's work together as Americans to find the American solution to our healthcare problems. That is what our Founding Fathers and our constituents expect from us.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding. We are proud to accept the Speaker's trophy for winning the golf tournament. The most important thing--and you said it--is that we raised $144,000 to go to wounded warrior and warfighter programs. Over the last 10 years, Members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, raised over $1 million. Jimmy, I am just glad we were able to take this trophy home. We will see you next year. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. The Presidential permitting process dates back through many administrations, beginning with the administration of Ulysses S. Grant. The executive branch has taken the necessary steps to ensure our cross- border infrastructure with Canada and Mexico was constructed. These past administrations, and even the current administration, were forced to issue executive orders because Congress failed to act. Congress has the duty to regulate the commerce of the United States, and cross-border energy infrastructure projects fall well within that space. Opponents of this bill argue the executive permitting process has worked well in the past. It is true that in the past the process has been proven effective. Unfortunately, cross-border decisions have now fallen victim to election year-cycle politics. We cannot build infrastructure in this country or on the continent based on who sits in the White House, whether they be Democrat or Republican. It is Congress' responsibility to create regulatory rules by which infrastructure is constructed. This bill will create a regulatory process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Department of State, and the Department of Energy to permit cross-border infrastructure. It is not different than building roads, bridges, or railways. The Department of Transportation coordinates with the Federal, State, and local agencies to ensure projects are completed and the environment is protected. We will do the same thing for pipes and wires. We need to build electric transmission lines and pipelines to move resources from where they are to where they are needed. The bill complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and requires a full environmental review of any cross-border facility including analysis of climate change impacts. More so, the entire length of the pipeline or electric transmission line will be reviewed for environmental impacts not just for the cross-border pipeline. While there is some confusion on this issue, opponents of the bill talk about how we will gut the NEPA process--the National Environmental Policy Act. This is simply not the case. My colleague from Texas (Mr. Veasey) will offer a bipartisan amendment to the bill clarifying that the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act review shall not be limited in any way by this act. The bill is about the future and how to meet energy demands for the 21st century. We should embrace the changes taking place in North America and harmonize our policies with those of our neighbors both to the north with Canada and to the south with Mexico, and this bill, if it becomes law, will do that.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Mullin for partnering together. Like he said, Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of things in common. We both are energy States. But believe me, the Red River does divide us on football.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, there seems to be some confusion here that this bill takes away National Environmental Policy Act enforcement. That is just not true. In fact, during a committee hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we produced a Congressional Research Service report that said that nothing in this bill will take away the responsibility for the NEPA process, the National Environmental Policy Act. To make sure that every inch of those pipelines will be studied for environmental issues is not our intention. Our intention is just to move product. We will go through all the efforts. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional Research Service that we got in committee. [From the Congressional Research Service, May 2, 2017] Memorandum To: The Honorable Gene Green; Attention: Justin Ackley From: Linda Luther, Analyst in Environmental Policy, ext. 7- 6852 Subject: Scope of NEPA Review Required for Federal Agency Approvals This memorandum responds to your request asking CRS to clarify the scope of an environmental review prepared by federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). More specifically, you asked CRS to identify the scope of environmental impacts that a federal agency would be likely to evaluate before making a final decision on a request to approve certain energy infrastructure projects that would cross a United States border, such as the issuance of a ``certificate of crossing'' that would be required in the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (discussion draft released April 25, 2017). This memorandum identifies the range of environmental impacts that federal agencies currently evaluate when demonstrating compliance with NEPA. It also discusses current agency practices, for similar projects, that generally involve the evaluation of the environmental impacts of any new facilities constructed in the United States (i.e., impacts that may occur as a result of approving a cross-border energy infrastructure project). Information in this memorandum may be used or may have been used in other CRS products. Before a federal agency can make a final decision on a proposed federal action, NEPA requires that agency to identify the proposal's effects on the ``quality of the human environment.'' The scope and level of review required under NEPA depends on whether those effects will be ``significant.'' To make that determination, each agency must identify and evaluate the proposal's-- Direct effects--impacts caused by the project and occurring at the same time and place, including impacts directly associated with the construction and operation of the facilities;. Indirect effects--impacts that are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable; and Cumulative effects--impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes that other action. If an agency is authorized to approve a cross-border facility (e.g., issue a certificate of crossing for certain energy infrastructure projects as in the proposed bill), that agency's decision must be informed by appropriate environmental review required under NEPA. As federal agencies currently implement NEPA, the requirement to identify and consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has meant that the agency evaluates the effects of siting, building and operating the entire structure in the United States (not just the cross-border segment they are authorized to approve). That is, if a federal agency is authorized to approve a cross-border project, that agency's existing NEPA practices would likely continue to involve analysis of impacts associated with the approval of the facility that physically crosses the border, as well as any new facilities constructed in the United States. I hope this information is useful to you. Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, the other issue, though, is we are going to do belts and suspenders. That is an old saying I heard. We already had a belt, but now we are going to deal with an amendment from Congressman Veasey. We will make sure it is belts and suspenders and that the National Environmental Policy Act is applied to these pipelines, because that is not our intent. So we not only have the Congressional Research Service saying it is, we are going to put language into this bill, and I understand it will be accepted by our side, to make sure that is there. What we need to do is make sure that our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico--right now, Mexico needs the natural gas that we are producing in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico; but 20 years from now, our wells may be dry for natural gas, and we will need that natural gas that Mexico will be producing when they work in northern Mexico. So that is why we need to structuralize this, if we are really going to have a North American energy market for electric transmission like they do up in the New England States or electric transmissions even along the border in Texas. I know they do the same thing in southern California. We need to have some certainty with our closest neighbors. We have a free trade agreement with these two countries. It is already decided it is in our national interest. Why would we set aside energy as something different? That is why this bill is so important. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote for this legislation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. In the United States today, there is 150 million acres of protected land set aside in the National Wildlife Refuge System for protected designation for America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Conservation efforts like the National Wildlife Refuge System build up America's great conservation legacy that began with Teddy Roosevelt. Ensuring that future generations of Americans have access to these great traditions must be our priority as a body going forward. In this 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge System land, though, there currently stretches 1,339 miles of pipeline already. Protecting our natural resources and building much-needed infrastructure are not mutually exclusive goals. These pipelines are already there. They are not destroying the lands or their ecosystem or prohibiting the American people from enjoying access to this public land. Companies must pay the government for use of the land for pipelines. That money, in turn, goes into acquiring more land for conservation efforts and recreational use. The Department of Transportation's review of safety accidents conducted under President Obama's administration showed that in addition to providing a substantial cost advantage, pipelines result in fewer spillage incidents and personal injuries than either road or rail. As coal-fired power plants continue to shut down, the demand for natural gas, a lower emission alternative, is going to keep going up. Whether the gas is produced in Canada, Alaska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, or the Gulf of Mexico, it will be used all over the country, and we need to ensure that a regulatory framework is in place that allows us to get this supply to where it is needed. The amendment is a backhanded way to prevent any pipelines or electrical transmission infrastructure from being built. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Veasey, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, again, this is Congressman Veasey's idea, and I am doing it for him because he couldn't be here. Our intent when crafting the bill was never to reduce or limit the National Environmental Policy Act applicability when considering whether to approve a cross-border project. Before a Federal agency can make a final determination on a proposed Federal action, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the agency identify the proposal's effects on the quality of human environment and whether these effects will be significant. To make this determination, Federal agencies identify and evaluate the direct and indirect cumulation of effects of the proposal. Direct effects are the impacts caused by the project occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are the impacts that are later in time or further removed but still reasonably foreseeable. And cumulative effects are impacts on the environment that result with incremental impacts on the action, regardless of what person or agency undertakes that action. The Federal agencies currently implement NEPA. The requirement to identify all three of these impacts has required the analysis of impacts to include not just the cross-border section of the project, but any new facility or structure constructed within the United States. Our office had the bill analyzed by the experts at the Congressional Research Office, who confirmed that the underlying bill did not in any way limit the scope of future National Environmental Policy Act reviews under it. Under our language, they will continue to involve reviews of the entire project, not just that part that crosses the border section. With that said, I have heard concerns from Members who are worried that the bill will limit the NEPA in some way. I am happy to support this bipartisan amendment with my colleague, Mr. Veasey, which unequivocally states that nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall affect the scope of any review required to be conducted by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. I support this good faith amendment--and like I said earlier, it is belts and suspenders, but sometimes we need them to pass legislation-- and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we wait for a vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I want to remind my colleagues that 51 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is more than the support for Congress or the President. More importantly, a recent study from Kaiser found that the ACA markets are stabilizing and insurers are regaining profitability. Yet we continue to hear false arguments saying that markets are collapsing or in a death spiral. That is not true. If the majority Republican is serious about fixing our healthcare system and cutting costs to healthcare, they should give up plans to repeal and start putting solutions over politics. I have said for years that the ACA is not perfect. No bill this Congress ever passed is. But in order to fix it, we need to work together on a bipartisan basis. The bill that the Senate and House GOP has proposed will undermine protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Now we are hearing there is an amendment on the Senate side that will essentially allow for the sale of policies with skimpier benefits, so long as insurers offer an option that covers all ACA-mandated benefits. We know where that goes. We will not be able to afford those benefits.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2430, the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017. For many months, we have worked on a bipartisan basis to negotiate and prepare for the four FDA user fee agreements for reauthorization, across party lines, and you are seeing that. That is why I am proud to be a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We will fight when we have to, but we also can work together on things that are really important to our country. These programs must be reauthorized in a timely manner to avoid a meltdown of the medical product development pipeline. We have had great collaboration and strong bipartisan working relationships throughout the process, from the publication of the goals letters, to the hearings, and the markups in the Health Subcommittee, all the way through the unanimous vote out of the Energy and Commerce Committee last month. Since the first PDUFA was established in 1992, Congress has created additional user fee programs for medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilars. In this cycle, we see shortened review timelines and have given the FDA new tools to harness the latest science and streamline the review process. FDARA would build on previous success by reauthorizing the user fees and make improvements in the review process like advancing the use of biomarkers and patient experience data. The bill includes additional provisions beyond the underlying agreements that are worthy of support. To give some examples, it will promote generic drug development and competition, establish a category of over-the-counter hearing aids, crack down on counterfeit drugs, and foster innovation in medical imaging. FDA approval is the global gold standard and reauthorizing the user fee programs will ensure the agency has the resources--particularly capable, qualified staffers--to fulfill this mission. I look forward to working with my colleagues to establish a user fee program for over-the-counter products and reform the monograph systems once we have reauthorized the existing user fee programs that will soon expire. I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Walden, and the chair of the Health Subcommittee, Congressman Burgess, for their work and commitment into timely user fee reauthorization. I also want to thank the staff, Kim Trzeciak and John Stone, and my own staff, Kristen O'Neill, for the countless hours of work they did to get us to this place. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2430.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our nation's servicemembers, military families, and community colleges in support of the National Defense Authorization Act. The 2018 NDAA supports our men and women in uniform by providing a much deserved 2.4 percent pay increase and extending special pay and bonuses for servicemembers. This bill further supports military families by prohibiting the proposed reduction in inpatient care for military medical treatment facilities located outside the United States, and will provide up to $500 for a spouse's expense related to obtaining a license or certification in another state because of a military move. Our nation's military is one of the major economic drivers for the State of Texas. Texas is home to several of America's largest military bases, including Fort Hood in Killeen, Fort Bliss in El Paso, and Joint Base San Antonio. Texas is also home to major defense manufacturing facilities that help our servicemembers protect America and employ thousands of hardworking Texans. The NDAA includes a provision, Section 3507, that will authorize the U.S. Maritime Administration to designate and provide assistance to certain community colleges and workforce training centers as ``centers of excellence'' that provide valuable skills in the maritime sector. This language will help community colleges, like San Jacinto College, in our district in Harris County, Texas, that provides a modern, comprehensive training program for working in our maritime industry. San Jacinto College works closely with Houston's maritime community and the Port of Houston, and recently opened a state-of-the-art maritime training center last year. This provision is modeled after legislation I introduced with Rep. Robert Wittman earlier this year, the Domestic Maritime Centers of Excellence Act (H.R. 2286). I hope our colleagues will support our Centers of Excellence provision and ensure its inclusion when the NDAA reaches the President's desk. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1492, the Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act. This legislation will allow physicians, in agreement with the Drug Enforcement Agency, to transport and administer controlled substances to patients in another setting or disaster area. Under current law, the Controlled Substances Act prohibits the transport and storage of controlled substances away from the site that is registered with the DEA. This makes it illegal for athletic team doctors to transport a small amount of critical medications that may be needed to treat athletes while on the road. Athletics are awfully important in Texas, and I think it is by luck of the draw--specifically, football--that you have three Texans today who want to make sure that our teams can have their doctors treat them. For equal time for my colleague from Dallas, I am sure this law would also provide for the Houston Texans, not just for the Dallas Cowboys. It also complicates care for patients in emergency disaster areas where a doctor may want to offer their services during a crisis. This bill would allow a physician to transport controlled substances to another practice setting or to a Presidentially declared disaster area if the physician is registered to dispense controlled substances listed on schedules II, III, IV, or V, and they enter into a specific agreement with the DEA. The agreement would require a physician to provide advance notification to the DEA of any transport, identify the controlled substances to be transported and the locations to and from, the intended dates of transport, and the anticipated travel time. The physician is also required to maintain records in their primary practice setting on the dispensing of transported substances, and the duration of the agreement is limited to 72 hours. As the Nation grapples with the ongoing prescription drug abuse crisis, these safeguards are important to ensuring appropriate use, while allowing doctors to treat patients where they are. I want to thank the sponsor, Representative Pete Sessions, and the committee for their work to advance this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1492, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3003. This bill before the Chamber today, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, is another attack on the immigration communities and communities of color in my home State of Texas and communities throughout the country. This misguided legislation would strip critical Federal funding for our local police agencies, such as COPS grants, that do not comply with Federal immigration detainers. Doing so would only undermine the public safety in our communities in Houston and Harris County. Our local law enforcement officers for Houston Police Department and Harris County sheriffs are responsible for protecting the people of our great city and county and upholding our local laws. They are not, nor should they be, de facto Federal immigration agents. The U.S. Constitution is clear that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the Federal Government and not the States or local governments. To require local police officers to enforce Federal immigration law would not only violate our 200-year tradition of federalism but will tear apart the local trust our police and sheriffs have built with the immigrant community and communities of color over the years. I ask my colleagues to let our local law enforcement protect our families and our homes and not be immigration agents.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has come out with their score--or, as we call it, cost--that was released today that further confirms the actions taken by the Senate Republicans are just as mean as the House Republicans. Protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions will be undermined; hardworking families will be expected to pay more for less coverage; and $772 billion will be cut from Medicaid, a safety net for millions of seniors in nursing homes, pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities. The Senate Republicans can change the name of the bill, but, as we now know, it is not fundamentally different. I hope this score raises a red flag for Republicans in both the House and the Senate. I urge that they reconsider in trying to cram their TrumpCare bill through the Senate. Years ago Senator Dirksen said: ``A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money.'' Mr. Speaker, a million here, a million there, and pretty soon the Senate Republicans will be talking about denying coverage for 22 million people; 15 million will lose coverage next year alone. How on Earth is this a debate? This is not healthcare. It is a tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans at the cost of low-income and middle class families. Twenty-two million people will lose healthcare.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act. High school, community college, and trade school students in Houston and Harris County, Texas deserve the opportunity to receive a high- quality career and technical education (CTE). CTE education is the pathway for many in our community and throughout our great country to a good paying job and the middle class. High-quality CTE programs are critical for our nation's economy. Nearly every sector of our economy, from refiners and shipbuilders along the Houston Ship Channel to medical device manufacturers and information technology firms, rely on skilled STEM-educated workers to innovate and compete in the global marketplace. For over thirty years, the federal government has provided direct support to CTE programs nationwide through the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. Congress has not successfully reauthorized the Perkins Act in 11 years, delaying the needed reforms and additional resources our CTE students deserve. Today's legislation delivers the reforms and resources that will help improve our local career and technical education programs. The Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act will provide states more flexibility in the use of federal resources in response to changes in education and the economy and reduce administrative burdens and simplify the process for states to apply for federal resources. This legislation will increase federal investment in CTE program by nine percent over the life of the authorization and reward success and innovation in CTE program practices that have been proven to best serve students and employers. I ask all my colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan legislation that is broadly supported by job creators and educators from across our great nation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have a copy of the Senate bill to repeal ObamaCare, and it is no wonder they didn't want us to see it. Like the mean-spirited bill passed by the House, it rips insurance away from millions of Americans, rolls back key protections to patients with preexisting conditions, and allows insurers to charge older people five times more than others. Despite the promises that the Senate bill will moderate the coverage cuts in the House-passed bill, the Senate is not only retaining the House bill's fundamental restructuring of the Medicaid program to a per capita cap on Federal funding, but it is deepening the cuts on Medicaid after a few years. This will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare for 70 million Americans who are beneficiaries of Medicaid: pregnant women, people in nursing homes, children, and people with disabilities. It is not even clear what policy goal this bill is trying to solve, except for making insurance more expensive or unavailable for people who really need it the most. It is almost hard to call this a healthcare bill at all. There were no hearings, no public debate, and after weeks of backroom deals and operating in secrecy, we now have this terrible product that the Senate plans to vote on next week. I think the American people deserve better.