Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 250, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 910. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA held that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are ``air pollutants'' under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the EPA was legally obligated to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. If the EPA made a positive finding, then it would also have to issue regulations to reduce such emissions. On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued its endangerment finding. The finding was based on a 200-page synthesis of major scientific assessments authored by not only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but also by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Research Council, NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the CDC, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and others. The EPA's scientific basis for the finding was extensively reviewed by, among others, a group of leading scientists from federal agencies. In order to limit the number of industrial sources that would be subject to regulation, the EPA issued its ``Tailoring Rule'' last May which raised the Clean Air Act statutory thresholds to require greenhouse gas permitting only for the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gas emissions from 100/250 tons to 100,000 tons per year. In response to these actions, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act. My two largest concerns with the bill is that it overturns both the Supreme Court's finding that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment. By doing this, the Energy Tax Prevention Act could also: prohibit EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements; prevent EPA from taking impacts on climate change into consideration when approving alternatives to ozone depleting substances under Title VI of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol; create legal uncertainty about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by EPA; and call into question EPA's authority to implement voluntary programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I must emphasize that I am opposed to the EPA moving forward with regulations on large utilities and refineries in our country, because I believe that the Congress should be the decision maker on carbon control issues. However, we cannot discount the Supreme Court decision, say climate change is not an issue and move on with it, which is the approach the Energy Tax Prevention Act takes. Instead, we should pass a bill that would delay the EPA from moving forward with these regulations so that the Congress has time to address this issue with input from Members that represent diverse constituencies nationwide. So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to provide leadership on this front. Let's address carbon so that we don't have to worry about what the EPA is doing and whether they will be sued by outside groups to further regulate these industries or move up already announced dates for rulemaking. This Congress has the power to be 100% in control of giving our manufacturing base the regulatory certainty it needs. Cap and Trade legislation will not pass this Congress, but I believe a solution can be found for controlling carbon emissions by using nuclear and natural gas to generate electricity. As such, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and instead, let us pass into law a bipartisan, comprehensive carbon control program that regulates emissions with the least disruption to our economy.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Members: Ignoring the facts, the experts, political reality, and the best interests of the American people, the Republican leadership continues to embrace a spending plan already rejected by the Senate that would destroy 700,000 jobs and derail the economic recovery. The Republican spending plan is a doctrine of misplaced priorities. They want to lay off teachers, cut Pell Grants, slash programs for homeless veterans, and reduce Head Start, among other shortsighted and harmful cuts. Incomes and consumer spending increased in February, helping to expand the Nation's economy. First time jobless claims decreased by 5,000 a week. The total number of people receiving benefits fell to the lowest level in 3 years, due, in part, to increased hiring. The February jobs report shows a gain of 192,000 jobs, a significant employment increase that marks the 12th straight month of private sector growth and a drop in the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, the lowest level in almost 2 years. Let's don't hurt our fragile recovery by the Republican majority shutting down the government.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 173, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, March 2, 2011, marks Texas Independence Day. A hundred and seventy-five years ago, the Texas Declaration of Independence was ratified by the Convention of 1836 on Washington-on-the-Brazos in Texas. This is an important day for Texas, and patriotic Texans observe this occasion with great pride. In 1824, a military dictatorship took over in Mexico abolishing the Mexican constitution. The new military dictatorship refused to provide trial by jury, freedom of religion, public education for their citizens, and allowed for the confiscation of firearms--this last one particularly intolerable, particularly for Texans. The Texas Declaration of Independence states that Texas' government had been ``forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism.'' It stated that because of the injustice of Santa Anna's tyrannical government, Texans were severing their connection with the Mexican nation and declaring themselves ``a free, sovereign, and independent republic fully invested with all the rights and attributes'' that belong to independent nations; and a declaration that they ``fiercely and confidently'' committed their decision to ``the Supreme Arbiter of the destinies of Nations.'' The Texas Declaration of Independence was needed because this military dictatorship had ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people of Texas. Failure to provide these basic rights violated the sacred contract between a government and the people, and Texans at that time, and want to still today, stand up for their rights. In response, the Mexican army marched to Texas, waging a war on the land and the people, enforcing the decrees of the military dictatorship with brute force and without any democratic legitimacy. Today, 175 years later, Texas President and Governor of Texas, Sam Houston, and other delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. General Santa Anna's army besieged the independence forces at the Alamo in San Antonio. Four days after the signing of this Declaration of Independence, the Alamo fell with her commander, Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis, and former Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett and approximately 200 other Texas defenders. All these men were killed in action in a heroic sacrifice for Texas freedom. If this tragedy were not enough, weeks later Santa Anna's Army massacred 300 unarmed Texans at Goliad on March 27 of 1836. In a dramatic turnaround, Texans achieved their independence several weeks later on April 21, 1836. Roughly 900 members of the Texan army overpowered a much larger Mexican army in a surprise attack at the Battle of San Jacinto in Harris County, Texas. This battle is memorialized along the San Jacinto River with the San Jacinto Monument in our congressional district. The monument's larger than the monument here in Washington, the Washington Monument. Sam Houston High School, which we have a lot of schools in our district named for Sam Houston, actually received a Texas historical marker about 3 weeks ago. Today we give thanks to the many Texans that sacrificed for the freedom we enjoy today. God bless Texas and God bless America.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia. For 15 seconds, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Sullivan. I think we need to think how we are doing this with ethanol. It costs more. I don't want to import oil either. That's why we need to produce it in our own country.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I want to thank my colleague and ranking member from Washington State. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Representative Burgess' amendment would endanger the $830 million already set aside for classrooms and school districts in Texas through the Education Jobs Fund that was passed last August. At a time when our State is facing an almost $27 billion deficit, these are crucial moneys that can be used immediately to help school districts throughout Texas. Let me give you a little history. During the Recovery Act of 2009, Texas received $12 billion. Of that, $3.2 billion was supposed to be for public education. Our Governor and the Texas legislature used $12 billion. Instead of supplementing the current education funding, they used the $3.2 billion in place of the current education funding. The Governor went all over the country, getting books signed, saying how bad the Federal Government is, but they didn't give back that $12 billion. They used it to plus-up the rainy day fund that's over $9 billion right now, and they don't even want to use it. So, at that time, what the Democratic Members from Texas said was that we want to make sure this $830 million goes to the schoolchildren of Texas. That's what this would do, and that's what this law does. It would make sure that that money would go to the schoolchildren. It wouldn't get stuck in Austin. It would go down to my Houston school district, the Galena Park School District, which is having to cut its budget right now because it didn't get that $3.2 billion 2 years ago. That's why the Burgess amendment should be defeated, Mr. Chairman, and that's why we put this amendment into law. It's in the law now, and I'm proud of it. Let the money go to the school districts instead of to the folks who decided to keep it in the State capital.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following editorial: Bad Language: English-Only Bills Once Again Attempt To Penalize Immigrants [From the Brownsville Herald, Feb. 13, 2011] Among the various bills offered in Washington and Austin are new efforts to force every US. resident to speak English. U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has pledged to file an English-only bill in Congress. Similar bills have already been filed in the Texas Legislature. State Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, has filed legislation to make English the official state language and require that all official business be conducted in that language. Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington, has offered a bill mandating that driving tests be given only in English. We doubt that such bills would pass constitutional muster. The First Amendment clearly states that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' That should include laws limiting the language that people choose to speak. The nativists who support such legislation forget this country's honorable history of accepting troubled refugees, such from Cuba in 1980, Indochina in the 1970s and various defectors from the Soviet bloc countries throughout the Cold War. It's unreasonable and cruel to accept these people, only to impose our oppressive rules on their behavior. Language restrictions on driver's tests make little sense, especially in a border state like Texas. Many foreign nationals spend significant amounts of time in this state, whether on business or on vacation. Many of them drive on our streets when they're here. With trade pacts calling for greater access to shipments from other countries, we should encourage people to show proficiency and knowledge of our traffic laws; language restrictions will only discourage people from working to get those licenses. The ability to conduct business in other languages should be evident to all state lawmakers. More than $150 billion in goods are traded between Texas and Mexico each year alone. Greater investment and trade coming from Japan, China, and other countries should inspire officials to expand rather than restrict languages that are accepted for legal documents. Language is not a major problem for this country. Many immigrants come here unable to speak English but, more than 80 percent of their children are fluent in the language. English is the primary language of some 94 percent of their grandchildren. However, such bills send a clear message to people in other countries: We don't want you here. As America continues to fall behind other countries academically and is losing trade and commerce to other countries, we might be convincing some of the brightest minds to stay home, and benefit their home countries, not the U.S. We trust majorities of lawmakers will see the folly in these bills.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to Amendment No. 27 by Rep. Markey to H.R. 1, the Fiscal Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011. This amendment attempts to retroactively reverse the express intent of Congress in passing the Royalty Relief Act. In the case of Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas v. Allred, the Fifth Circuit Court specifically held that the Department of the Interior does not have authority to impose royalty relief price thresholds on deep water leases issued from 1996-2000. In reaching this decision, the Fifth Circuit held that Congress was unambiguous in guaranteeing royalty relief, without price thresholds, to holders of these leases up to the volumes specified in the statute. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and other regulations allow our government to preclude a lessee from obtaining new leases if it has failed to act with due diligence with respect to its existing leases. This amendment would add a new requirement that imposes that same penalty but for an entirely different and unrelated reason. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while I am adamantly opposed to the EPA moving forward with regulations on large utilities and refineries in our country, I believe that the Congress should be the decision maker on carbon control issues. That is why I have cosponsored Rep. Capito's bill that would prohibit the EPA from issuing any greenhouse gas emission-related rules or regulations for two years so that the Congress has time to address this issue. A solution can be found for controlling carbon emissions by using nuclear and natural gas to generate electricity and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with me on this to give industry the certainty they need.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 96, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 575 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman and Members, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for yielding to me. Let me first say that I have read the bill. I was on the subcommittee and the full committee and served on the Health Subcommittee for many years. And I had many people ask me that. And believe me, when you spend hours and hours literally in testimony and amending the bill, you have the chance to read it. And I would hope my Republican colleagues, and all of us, would do the same thing, our appropriators, I would hope they would read the appropriations bill if they are accusing us on the Energy and Commerce Committee who drafted that bill. What this amendment would do would take away the funding that the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services would be able to enforce that insurance can't drop someone from coverage when they become sick. They would take away that funding. Seniors would be saving money. They should enforce it, saving money for seniors for prescription drugs. Young adults up to age 26 are getting back on insurance with their parents. That would stop the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services from enforcing that law. Small businesses are receiving billions of dollars in tax credits to provide health care coverage. This would stop it. Defunding health care would end these benefits and put insurance companies back in charge. The whole goal of the health care bill, whether you call it ObamaCare--I wanted it to be called the Gene Green bill. But I admit, I'm only one of 435 is to cut these benefits. That's what this bill is about in this amendment. It will defund the great things in the health care law. Let's go back and talk about the things that we all agree that need to be changed. But if you take away the money, we'll lose this for all the folks in our districts.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 68, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 249 Offered by Mr. Canseco

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 73, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 532 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 71, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment No. 457 Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 20, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to respond, because if the Constitution means anything, it also shows that as Members of the House and the Senate, the legislative branch, it's not our job to decide constitutionality. My opinion is just as important as yours. It's the nine people over in the Supreme Court that the Constitution gives that authority to. And I think the health care law is constitutional, because all those companies serve all of our States. It's across State lines. The commerce clause works that way. So hiding behind the Constitution--and we read it here on the floor--this bill will be constitutional because Social Security's constitutional, mandatory insurance in our States is constitutional. So we can have that argument. It doesn't do any good.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress from Texas, I supported the health care reform law proudly. Texas has some of the highest rates of uninsured in the United States. Twenty-six percent of our Texans are uninsured--6.4 million residents--compared with the national average of only 16.7 percent. Over the past 8 years in Texas, employer-based insurance coverage has dropped 18 percent. Now, only 48 percent of Texans have health insurance provided by their employers--well below the national average. Texas has some of the highest health insurance premiums in the U.S. A family of four making $44,000, the average premium out-of-pocket is $6,548--almost 15 percent of their income. In Texas, our State Department of Insurance report to the legislature acknowledged the positive impact of the Affordable Care Act. The State of Texas Department of Insurance concluded the Affordable Care Act will have a positive impact on the State and help Texans gain access to private insurance coverage. As the Department of Insurance report states, ``the removal of underwriting restrictions, new premium rating reforms, availability of subsidies and limitations on out-of- pocket expenses for low- and middle-income families should make it easier for many low-income Texans to obtain private insurance.'' In our district in Houston and Harris County, 40 percent of my constituents were uninsured when we passed the Affordable Care Act in March of last year. Repeal, H.R. 2, would be a major setback to what we're trying to do in our own district. To cite a few local statistics from the repeal on my constituents: increase the number of people without insurance by almost 217,000; allow insurance companies to deny coverage to at least 102,000 people in our district, including at least 12,000 children with preexisting conditions; eliminate health care tax credits for 14,600 small businesses and 177,000 people; increase prescription drug costs for 4,400 seniors in my district who fell into that doughnut hole except for health care reform. My Republican colleagues want to work on improving it. I'm here to do it, but repeal is not the answer. Biennial Report of the Texas Department of Insurance to the 82nd Legislature (December 2010) (Mike Geeslin, Commissioner of Insurance) Texas Department of Insurance, Austin, Texas, December 31, 2010 Hon. Rick Perry, Governor, Hon. David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor, Hon. Joe Straus, III, Speaker. Dear Governors and Speaker: In accordance with Section 32.022, Texas Insurance Code, I am pleased to submit the biennial report of the Texas Department of Insurance (Department or TDI). The report summarizes needed changes in the laws relating to regulation of the insurance industry, provides information on market conditions, and includes reviews required by Senate Bill 1 (81st Legislature, Regular Session). The Department is available to discuss any of the issues contained in the report and to provide technical assistance. Please contact me or Carol Cates, Associate Commissioner of Government Relations, with any questions or if you need additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Submitted, Mike Geeslin, Commissioner of Insurance. Texas Department of Insurance: Securing the Future of Texas Mission To protect insurance consumers by: regulating the industry fairly and diligently promoting a stable and competitive market providing information that makes a difference. Values We have a passionate commitment to service in the public interest. We are: Responsible Stewards: accountable, efficient, effective ``Using resources wisely''. Professional: knowledgeable and fair ``Adhering to the highest ethical standards''. Collaborative: cooperative, inclusive, diverse ``Respecting others' opinions and expertise''. Resilient and Creative: open-minded and proactive ``Learning from the past to enhance the future'' Balanced: fulfilled and well-rounded ``Celebrating personal and professional successes''. Senate Bill 1--Rider 18: Review of Health Insurance Availability and Affordability The 81st Legislature included in Senate Bill 1 a directive to the Texas Department of Insurance to conduct a review of ``the accessibility of health benefit plan coverage for and the affordability of health benefit plan premiums for low- income families and families not eligible for employer- sponsored insurance.'' Following is a summary of the results of the review. Like many states, Texas has struggled with increasing healthcare costs and insurance premiums that have prohibited many individuals from obtaining affordable health insurance. The rising cost of insurance affects individuals at all income levels and employers of all sizes but is particularly challenging for low income workers and small business owners. In 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) reports that 6.4 million Texans were uninsured for the entire year (Table One). Of the Texans who have health insurance, slightly more than half (53.8 percent) have private coverage, down from 56.9 percent in 2007 and lower than the national average of 63.9 percent. Texas workers are less likely to have employer-sponsored coverage with 48.2 percent of Texans enrolled in employment-based plans compared to a national average of 55.8 percent.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: [From The Baytown Sun, Jan. 4, 2011] Prepare To Die for Lack of Money (By Gene Lyons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) As polemics on the Obama administration's health care reforms re-emerge, I often ruminate about a horse. Lucky was an American Standard Bred gelding I owned. Compared to his quarter horse stable-mate, Lucky was unathletic and halfway clumsy. But he was also a sweetheart. As long as he could follow his buddy, anybody could ride him. Regardless of age or experience, Lucky would carry them carefully and bring them home safe. It's hard not to love such an animal. By the time I found him colicked in the barn, it was probably already too late. He'd been down for some time. I gave him an injection for the pain and walked him, but nothing worked. After a while, he lay down and refused to move. By the time the vet arrived, I'd been sitting wedged against his back for hours to prevent him from rolling and twisting his gut. After Lucky proved unresponsive to treatment, the vet asked me a hard question: ``Is this a $6,000 horse?'' He explained that there was an equine hospital over in Oklahoma that could perform potentially life-saving surgery. It cost $6,000 cash, up front. He warned that survival was chancy, and might leave my horse an invalid. I'd paid $1,000 dollars for Lucky; he was 25 years old, almost elderly. After a long night of IV fluids and pain meds, there was no avoiding the inevitable. Because there are some things a man must do for himself, I administered a lethal injection and ended up having to put a bullet into his brain. We buried him in his pasture. It was a hard, hard thing to do. This was two years ago, and it's a rare day I don't think about Lucky and his stable mate Rusty, who also died that year. I pray that I never outlive another horse. Long introduction, brief polemical point: Observing Republicans gear up to try to undo ``Obamacare,'' I suspect the only thing that will satisfy some is to make medical care in the United States work like veterinary care. You get what you can pay for. Otherwise, tough luck. Who would have thought that after Sarah Palin's imaginary ``death panels''--chosen by Politifacts.com, the fact- checking website, as its 2009 ``Lie of the Year''--Arizona Republicans would be denying heart, lung and liver transplants to Medicaid patients because Gov. Jan Brewer says the State can't afford them? To save a lousy $1.4 million (out of a $9 billion budget), Arizona's Health Care Cost Containment System has decreed an end to organ transplants. Maybe the bitterest irony is that the inhumane policy won't actually save any money. One of the roughly 100 citizens affected explained to Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini: ``I can't work anymore, and we ran out of (insurance) coverage a while back,'' he said. ``It's terrible needing help. It's not what I wanted. But when you run out of money, what can you do? If I don't get a transplant, I guess the state won't have to pay for me or worry about me until I walk into an emergency room close to dying. They can't turn me away then.'' No, they can't. Human hospitals can't refuse patients for lack of cash. Meanwhile, not a peep of protest from Palin, Rep. John Boehner or any of the Republicans who waxed hysterical over the absurd allegation that ``Obamacare'' would lead to government-sponsored euthanasia. But if people die for lack of money, that's the GOP way. Too bitter? Maybe so. Nevertheless, avoiding medical and economic reality has been the party's response ever since Obama adopted much of the conservative Heritage Foundation's health care proposals as his own. It's all to do with partisanship, nothing else. Consider the legalistic, angels- on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments GOP savants have made against the bill's unpopular health insurance mandate. Precisely because hospitals can't turn patients away, it's impossible to make private insurance companies cover pre- existing conditions (i.e. sick people) without encouraging deadbeats to game the system by not buying insurance until they need it. This defeats the whole purpose of a risk pool. Somebody's got to pay, and absent an insurance mandate, that somebody's you--one reason the United States has long had the most expensive, least efficient health care system in the world. Ah, but in GOP Dreamworld, everybody's Huck Finn, an independent actor in a 19th- century free-enterprise paradise. They claim the Constitution forbids government from making citizens buy something they don't want. Alas, in the real world, people can't not participate in the health care system.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for allowing me to speak. I rise in strong opposition to this rule on H.R. 2, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Just yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said that this repeal would cost $230 billion in additional Federal debt. It's amazing, this is our first major piece of legislation and the Republicans are already adding to the national debt. The issue facing our country is jobs. Instead of repealing health care, we should be bringing up a jobs bill like the China currency reform. Where is that bill on the floor with the new majority? Let me tell you what this bill will do. At least in Texas, we will see tragedy happen. 161,000 young adults will lose their insurance coverage through their parents' health care plan--that's only in Texas--and 2.8 million Texans who have Medicare coverage will be forced to pay copays now for preventative services like mammograms and colonoscopies. Medicare will no longer pay for the annual visit of nearly 2.8 million Texans--and many more Americans for Medicare--and 128,682 Texans on Medicare will receive higher prescription costs if this law is repealed. Madam Speaker, yesterday Congressional Budget Office said ``over the 2012-2021 period, the repeal of health care reform on federal deficits . . . will cost $230 billion.'' Texas and the rest of the nation cannot afford to add an additional $230 billion in deficit spending. The issue facing the country is jobs. Instead of repealing health care, we should bring up a jobs bill like China currency reform. The Republicans came into office promising to reduce federal spending and reduce the deficit, but their first act in the Majority is to try to pass a Rule that would exempt H.R. 2 for statutory PAYGO. In addition to adding billions in dollars to the deficit, consideration of H.R. 2 would jeopardize the current and future health care benefits of my constituents. The negative effects repealing the Affordable Care Act will have on Texas and all Americans. Up to 161,000 young adults would lose their insurance coverage through their parents' health plans. Nearly 11.8 million residents of Texas with private insurance coverage would suddenly find themselves vulnerable again to having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care. Insurance companies would once again be allowed to cut off someone's coverage unexpectedly when they are in an accident or become sick because of a simple mistake on an application. This would leave more than 1.1 million people in Texas at risk of losing their insurance. More than 1.1 million residents of Texas would not know if they are receiving value for their health insurance premium dollars, as insurers in state would no longer be required to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on health care rather than CEO salaries, bonuses, and corporate profits. Nearly 2.8 million seniors in Texas who have Medicare coverage would be forced to pay a co-pay to receive important preventive services, like mammograms and colonoscopies. Medicare would no longer pay for an annual check-up visit, so nearly 2.8 million seniors in Texas who have Medicare coverage would have to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting check-ups regularly. A total of 128,682 Texans on Medicare would see significantly higher prescription drug costs. In Texas, Medicare beneficiaries received a one-time, tax-free $250 rebate to help pay for prescription drugs in the ``donut hole'' coverage gap in 2010. Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the ``donut hole'' in 2011 will be eligible for 50 percent discounts on covered brand name prescription drugs. Madam Speaker, when Texans and all Americans will soon be finally free from worrying that affordable coverage will not be available to them and their families when they need it the most, repealing the Affordable Care Act would be devastating. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule to consider H.R. 2.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. ``If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified.''

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, H.R. 6523 is a strong bill that is intended to provide essential funding for our nation's troops, including providing our brave men and women in uniform the tools they need to succeed in our nation's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, we need to ensure that the first responders and individuals who were in the vicinity of the World Trade Center have access to the specialized medical treatment they need and that means ensuring these programs are properly funded. H.R. 847 accomplishes that goal and I am proud to be a cosponser of this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Stated against: