Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Vision Preservation Act of 2005. I am proud to introduce this legislation today along with my fellow co-chairs of the Congressional Vision Caucus: Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Repesentative David Price and Repesentative Pat Tiberi. The four of us created the Congressional Vision Caucus in 2003 to increase education and awareness of vision problems among Members of Congress and their staff. The Vision Caucus has been fortunate to have the support of Prevent Blindness America and many other vision organizations in these efforts. In 2004, Prevent Blindness America joined with the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, Lighthouse International and the National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research to put together an action plan to address vision problems. The legislation we introduce today is a legislative response to the recommendations outlined in that action plan. Currently, an estimated 80 million people in the United States have a potentially blinding eye disease, 3 million have low vision, 1.1 million are legally blind, and 200,000 are more severely visually impaired. In my state of Texas alone, more than 370,000 people suffer from diabetic retinopathy. At least 90,000 Texans over 50 live with AMD. And cataracts affect more than 1.2 million people in my state. Despite evidence that half of all blindness can be prevented, the number of Americans who suffer vision loss is expected to double by 2030 unless more effective prevention and treatment efforts can be implemented. The Vision Preservation Act will enhance current prevention and treatment efforts by focusing increased attention on vision research, expanding current federal vision programs, developing vision screening standards and providing for vision rehabilitation services under Medicare. The Vision Preservation Act builds on the quality programs currently in operation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Eye Institute within the National Institutes of Health. These agencies lead the way in health care research and the prevention of disease, and the enactment of this legislation will ensure that appropriate federal resources and research are dedicated toward stemming the vision diseases that afflict too many Americans. I encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation in recognition of Healthy Vision Month and ask for their continued support of the Congressional Vision Caucus's efforts to help improve the vision of our constituents throughout this nation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support not only H.R. 2520, but also H.R. 810, the Castle/DeGette legislation to expand Federal research for embryonic stem cells. Undoubtedly, each of us on this floor today has a friend, family member or neighbor who could benefit from increased embryonic stem cell research, whether they suffer from spinal cord injury, Alzheimer's, MS or juvenile diabetes. As we consider both the Castle/DeGette stem cell bill and the Smith legislation on umbilical cord stem cells, it is important we differentiate between the effects of these two bills. I support both of them. But one is not a substitute for the other. The Castle/DeGette bill will expand research on embryonic stem cells, which would have the ability to reproduce indefinitely and to evolve into any cell type in the body. It is this element of embryonic cell research that offers the most hope for finding cures to the diverse set of diseases that plague too many Americans. We cannot take away that hope by shutting the door on Federal research on embryonic stem cells. The President's policy shut that door, and we have lost 4 years of robust research that will be needed to cure the most complex diseases. Opponents of this bill will say that the embryonic cell research is unproven, but we will never know the true promise of embryonic stem cells if we hold back Federal dollars for the research. If embryonic stem cell research gets us even one step closer to curing Parkinson's, spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's, it is worth every penny. Just ask Michael J. Fox, Dana Reeves or Nancy Reagan. These tremendous people, as well as countless more in each of our communities, know what it is like to live every day waiting for your cure. Slamming the door on stem cell research slams the door in their faces. We talk about using our values to pass legislation to help people. Both these bills are important to helping people with such terrible illnesses. This last Saturday I helped my wife's mom move into a nursing home. She was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in the mid-1990s. We have watched the progression of that terrible disease. Nothing can help my mother- in-law. But by voting today for both these bills, we can help maybe the next generation, instead of sticking our heads in the sand. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for the millions of Americans suffering from incurable diseases. Pass both the Castle/ DeGette bill and the Smith legislation and keep the hope for embryonic cell and cord blood research alive.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. I want to urge strong support for the fiscal year 2006 energy and water bill. This legislation provides investment in water infrastructure essential not only to our country but to the Texas economy. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance on these projects, particularly two flood projects, Hunting and Greens Bayous in my district. Thousands of my constituents' homes and businesses are at risk from catastrophic flooding in these areas, and the funding in this bill, $500,000 and $150,000 each, keeps these projects on track. I would also like to express my strong support for the $26 million included for the Houston ship channel deepening and widening project. This funding means we are on track to complete the deepening and widening this year and begin the barge lanes and environmental restoration. However, the tough operations and maintenance budget of the Corps could have counterproductive effects. The Houston ship channel budget is $5 million under capability for 2006. If we cannot maintain our channels to the right depth, then modern ships will not be able to take advantage of this new project. The project will also suffer as millions taken out through reprogramming are not returned as promised by the Corps. The new policy to rein in reprogramming by requiring committee approval over $1 million is very sound. Reprogramming goes against the letter, number and intent of Congress. Financial stability is essential and large investments are made on the basis of congressional appropriations. More market risk equals higher cost for all the projects. We should note a few brief points about projects that have been lost to reprogramming in the past and need to be made whole. It seems unjust that the solution to restore the letter and spirit of the law falls on the backs of the most recent victims of reprogramming such as our Houston ship channel who had reprogrammed dollars not returned. Mr. Chairman, I include for printing in the Record written commitments from the Corps under two administrations. The word and spirit of these commitments are to honor congressional appropriations law. Congressional and Corps promises deserve to be honored. That is the same principle behind the extremely wise reprogramming policy of the future in this bill. However, we should allow the Corps to fulfill its past commitments. Again, I would like to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for making this bill possible. Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of Engineers, Dallas, TX, September 18, 2001. Hon. Gene Green, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter dated August 29, 2001, concerning the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas project. I regret that members of my staff were not able to meet with you on September 12, 2001, to discuss this project in more detail. Based on conversations with your office and Mr. William Dawson of my staff, the following information will address your primary concern. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains fully committed to completion of this project based on the optimal construction schedule. I can further assure you that we will reprogram up to $20 million in construction funds as required to this project to ensure that this schedule is maintained irrespective of any shortfall in the fiscal year 2002 Congressional appropriation. I continue to appreciate your patience and willingness to work with us on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions about the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project. Sincerely, David F. Melcher, Brigadier General, U.S. Army Commanding General.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution marking the 57th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel, and to extend my congratulations to the Israeli people. Israel has had to overcome many obstacles in its 57 years of existence. On May 14, 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence. Less than 24 hours later, the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the country, forcing Israel to defend itself. In what became known as Israel's War of Independence, the newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces held off the invaders in fierce fighting, which lasted 15 months and claimed over 6,000 Israeli lives, nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time. This war characterized the struggles the Israeli people have endured since 1948. However, in the face of this hostility from their neighbors, and the numerous terrorist attacks they have suffered, Israel has maintained the ideals it was founded on, pluralism, freedom, and human rights. Israel has served as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and its shared values with the United States has led to a natural friendship between the two nations. We in Congress stand firmly behind Israel. The United States has a stake in the future of Israel and in the entire region, and we must make every effort to assist Israel in its struggle for security by helping reach a lasting peace with its neighbors. Mr. Speaker, the commemoration of the independence of Israel is an important reminder of the contributions of Israel to democracy worldwide. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Israel's independence by supporting House Concurrent Resolution 149.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, my neighbor, for yielding me this time. It is interesting that there is potential production of our natural resources that people oppose. This amendment only covers the eastern Gulf of Mexico. It only covers off the coast of Florida. Not California, not the northeast United States, even though there may be potential there. This is just the eastern Gulf of Mexico. I just do not understand what is going to happen to our country if we continue to import more and more oil, and obviously we are having to import more and more natural gas. I do not know what the folks in California are going to do about energy. I know they have high prices. Get ready to have them even higher, unless we can start bringing production on line that is domestic production, and right now the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Edwards) amendment is the best potential because off the western coast of Florida is some of the most productive potential for natural gas and oil fields. I guess it is frustrating because off the nation of Cuba we have Chinese and Spanish companies that are drilling closer to Florida than U.S. companies can drill close to Florida. So we have a foreign country who can drill closer to Florida. This only covers the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and that is why I think some people will say no to anything. And I do not know what is their solution. More windmills? I love windmills and we can do that. We need energy, no matter whether that comes from oil, natural gas, windmills, or anything else. The United States produces some of the safest energy that we can. The nations of Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom are successfully producing oil and gas from their coastal waters, and yet we leave a great deal of ours except off of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Alaska. So, again, even though those beaches may be pristine, because I like the beaches in Texas and I consider them pristine, but we do not need to keep our head in the sand of those beaches and not realize we have to have more energy resources in our country.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, today are considering the Interior Appropriations Bill, which provides Federal funding for our national parks, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. I agree with the assessment of our ranking member, Mr. Obey, that this subcommittee has done good work with a difficult allocation. I would have preferred more resources devoted to important environmental, land management, and land conservation programs. As this bill moves forward, I hope to work with the subcommittee to provide EPA funding for a much-needed study on air toxics in east Harris County, which lies in the district I represent. The Houston Chronicle recently completed a five-part series titled ``In Harm's Way'' that investigated air toxics in these ``fence-line'' communities near industrial facilities. In particular, the series noted that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found that folks residing in some of Houston's East End neighborhoods experience higher levels of potentially carcinogenic compounds than other areas. For many years, residents have had concerns and questions about the quality of the air in Houston's East End, the potential relationship to local industry, and the potential health effects on families. While it came to few conclusions about health impacts of air toxics in Houston, the Chronicle series raised an alarm and confirmed that there is a pressing need for a comprehensive Air Toxics Risk Assessment to properly identify any adverse health effects and their possible relationship to local industry. With support from the EPA, the City of Houston plans to utilize methods from the EPA's National Urban Toxics Program, which has proven successful in other cities with air quality issues. The City of Houston, partnering with the University of Texas School of Public Health, is already working to characterize the science and weigh the evidence on health effects. Federal funding would broaden the scope of these efforts to ensure that we can include the full range of risk assessment activities in our efforts to improve the air in Houston. The folks in fence-line communities are often the workers who produce many of the essential energy and petrochemical products we all use everyday, and they deserve accurate information about their environment. I look forward to working with the EPA on this effort and hope that the Appropriations Committee will see it fit to include this critical funding during conference negotiations on this legislation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, opening up the Offshore Continental Shelf will save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 years for our consumers and manufacturers. It is not just for businesses, but to heat and cool our homes we use natural gas. If we do not explore and produce off our potential, whether it be California, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, or anywhere else, we are going to continue to be held up by the world price. Our consumers will pay for it. Mr. Chairman, I like the beaches in Texas, I like them in Florida and California, but I also know we need to use our natural resources. Supply and demand for energy is out of whack and our Nation needs more energy. The Federal Government tried to mandate demand reduction in the last energy crisis and it contributed to a nationwide recession we do not want to repeat. A recent Gallup poll found that half of family budgets have been seriously affected by the recent rise in energy prices. Opening the OCS could save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 years, for consumers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are sending manufacturing jobs overseas, following the cheap gas. Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the UK are safely and successfully producing natural gas from their coastal waters. No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. I have been on oil and gas rigs and they have such few discharges into the ocean, a medium sized fishing boat will leak more in a year. This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's energy crisis with a national solution. I feel justified in supporting this amendment because I am from a coastal district. My constituents feel the same way as I do on this issue. Chemical production and oil and gas exploration, processing, and refining are Texas top coastal industries. My colleagues from Florida and California think only they have beaches, but coastal tourism is Texas's second largest coastal industry. That fact alone shows the argument that oil and gas production and coastal tourism are mutually exclusive is just plain wrong. They are acting like Chicken Little, and cannot point to one beach in Texas that has been ruined by oil or natural gas production. There will be less need for LNG facilities and LNG tankers when we tap our own offshore resources so we can use the safest mode of transportation in the world--pipelines. To address the needs of American families, we need a 3 pronged strategy. First, we need more production and infrastructure to meet our needs of today and tomorrow. Second, we need more conservation to keep our economy going as resources become more competitive globally. Third, we need more research to transition our economy to future sources of energy, for a time when petrochemicals are only used for materials, and not as an everyday fuel. Supporting only long-term solutions and conservation is just not enough. It might be easier if it was, but we need to do more for today's energy problems. We will need continued American energy production for some time. My point is not that we can drill our way to cheap oil or drill our way to energy independence. If we allow domestic production to die out, conservation and research will not save us, and we will have to pay a terrible economic price. I urge my colleagues to support oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. This is a common sense bill that will address the problems in the current formula that has been used to distribute first responder funding over the past 3 years. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Department has provided nearly $10.5 billion directly to state and local ``first responders,'' such as emergency personnel, law enforcement and other agencies, to enhance their ability to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks. The USA PATRIOT Act guarantees each state, plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, at least 0.75 percent of the total funding available under the formula-based program. In allocating funding over the past 3 years, the Homeland Security Department's Office of Domestic Preparedness has provided the base amount, and has then distributed the remaining funding based on population. Under the current system in FY 2004 my home State of Texas received the second lowest amount of funding per capita, receiving only $5.35 per person, despite having the longest international border of any state, the second largest foreign port, and being home to the Johnson Space Center, as well as hundreds of energy production facilities and chemical plants. Wyoming however, which has no international borders or major metropolitan area, received $37.94 per capita. In its report, the September 11 Commission urged that first responder grants be distributed on the basis of risk, and this bill does that by lowering the minimum guarantee for each state to 0.25 percent, or 0.45 percent for states that have an international border, and by requiring that the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program be distributed based on 16 threat criteria. This will ensure that Texans are not receiving $32.59 less per capita than citizens in Wyoming. H.R. 1544 will also require states to develop 3-year homeland- security plans for enhancing their preparedness and response capabilities, and it requires all applicants, which will be expanded in this bill to also include regional organizations in addition to state agencies, to be consistent with the plan. I strongly support these provisions because it will allow funding to go directly to the communities that need it most, rather than being funneled through the state, and it requires that applicants specify how their grant fits into the plan. Over the past several years there have been numerous reports of states spending homeland security grant dollars on items such as traffic cones in Des Moines, air-conditioned garbage trucks in Newark, NJ, and bullet-proof vests for dogs in Columbus, Ohio. A recent report about Texas found that the Texas Engineering Extension Service, the agency which distributes Homeland Security funds in Texas, was not providing proper oversight and cities and counties were spending this money on questionable items. This is not how Homeland Security dollars were intended to be spent, and this bill will cut down on the frivolous and excessive spending that has taken place with this money over the past 3 years. Mr. Chairman, because this bill creates a formula to distribute grant money based on threat criteria, because it provides for better oversight of spending, and because it allows regional organizations as well as states to apply for grant funding, I strongly support this bill and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes Remembrance Day, and to remember the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. Sixty years ago, as American, British, and Soviet soldiers moved across Europe in a series of offensives on Germany, they encountered and liberated concentration camp prisoners. Advancing from the west, U.S. divisions freed the major concentration camps of Dora-Mittelbau, Buchenwald, Flossenbuirg, and Dachau in Germany, and Mauthausen in Austria. In northern Germany, British forces liberated Bergen-Belsen and Neuengamme. In the east, Soviet divisions liberated Auschwitz in Poland in January 1945. Just a few weeks before the German surrender in early May 1945, they liberated the Stutthof, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbruck concentration camps inside Germany. In liberating the Nazi camps, the Anglo-American and Soviet soldiers exposed to the world the horror of Nazi atrocities. Today, we must rededicate ourselves to fighting intolerance, racism and apathy so that future generations do not experience the suffering, terror and ultimate death endured by the victims of the Holocaust. Remembrance Day serves as a reminder that we must never forget the appalling tragedy of the Holocaust, and the six million Jews who lost their lives. Unfortunately, the struggle against anti-Semitism continues today, as recent reports indicate an increase in violence against the Jewish community around the world. Last year alone there were reports of anti- Semitic desecration and vandalism of about 40 schools, 140 statues and cemeteries, 60 synagogues and 60 businesses around the world. The number of anti-Semitic incidents in the United States also rose by 17 percent in 2004. Sixty years after the end of the Holocaust, it is important that we strengthen our fight against anti-Semitism and religious intolerance. It has been said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Yom Hashoah reminds each of us where racism, bigotry and religious intolerance can lead, so that something as horrific as the Holocaust is never repeated.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bill. Unfortunately, last week when the majority of members in this body passed the Budget Resolution, they also voted to zero out funding for programs under the Carl Perkins Act. Through the Perkins Act, hundreds of thousands of students have received an education beyond just high school. They have developed marketable skills that enable them to work at competitive wages, often to support themselves or their families as they receive their college education. Sam Houston High School is in my District. It is a school with hard- working students who often live under circumstances that do not allow them to enter a 4-year university right after high school graduation. Many of these students stay at home and enter the workforce to help support their families. Due to decreases in state and Federal funding, Sam Houston High School recently lost their vocational education program. This has been devastating to some students who were relying on learning a unique skill that would give them the ability to earn enough to pay for the rising cost of college and get the work experience that will benefit them in the future. These programs allow high schools to enter articulation agreements with our local community colleges so students receive college credit for many of the courses they take and they develop skills to enter the workforce. Perkins offers a win-win opportunity for many students to earn college credit and get training and job offers from companies such as General Motors, Continental Airlines and Lockheed Martin. The Carl Perkins Act recognizes that not everyone goes to college immediately, but that does not mean these students do not want to further their education. Many students who participate in programs such as Tech Prep enter higher-paying jobs after high school to help pay for college. Recently, the National Association of Manufacturers released a report stating the U.S. will face a shortage of almost 10 million skilled workers by 2020. The students who benefit from the Perkins Act also benefit our economy by preventing the outsourcing of jobs and keeping industry in America flowing. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. The students in my district support Perkins and if we pass this bill today, they will be able to continue to pursue their goals.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to rise tonight to talk about a pressing problem of health care, but before I do, I want to associate my remarks with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), my colleague and neighbor, on Craig Washington. Congressman Washington replaced Mickey Leland, if anybody could replace Mickey Leland, in this House; and I served as a State house member and State senator with Craig. I can only say and echo what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) said, who I know saw him across from his bench many times, as he was both a brilliant lawyer and statesman, but also one of the most intelligent people I have known. Again, I want to associate myself with those remarks and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for doing that for Craig. Cover the Uninsured Week

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about one of the most pressing problems facing the health care system in our country, the growing number of uninsured. Every year since 2000, an additional million Americans have joined the ranks of the uninsured. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation recently reported that the number of individuals without any health insurance in our country rose to 45 million this year. This is a problem that we literally cannot afford not to address. In my hometown of Houston, we are proud to have the world-famed, world-class Texas Medical Center. Some of the most innovative and life- saving research and treatment developments are being discovered in our own backyard. The problem is that too many of our neighbors cannot access these live-saving treatments because they lack health insurance. My State of Texas ranks number one in uninsured adults, with 31 percent of adult Texans living without health insurance. The statistics for the Houston area are just as troubling with more than 31 percent of our Harris County residents living without health insurance. When a third of the State and county's population is without health insurance, I think it is safe to say this problem has reached crisis proportions. The increase in the number of uninsured is due, in part, to the changing nature of health care in our country. Gone are the days when we could count on our employers to provide comprehensive health insurance for us and our families. With health insurance costs reaching $10,000 per year, low-wage workers cannot fend for themselves. With full-time minimum-wage workers bringing home roughly that much each year, they cannot spend the bulk of their earnings on health insurance, and many small businesses are finding that they simply cannot afford to purchase health insurance for their employees. As a sideline, not only small businesses, but some of our larger businesses, whether it be General Motors or Shell Oil, talk about the disparities and how much they pay in industrialized countries like Europe and Japan for health insurance, and Canada, as compared to how much more they pay in our country. It is no little surprise that today 80 percent of the uninsured in this country are gainfully employed. Unfortunately, my State of Texas also ranks number one in the percentage of uninsured working adults, with 27 percent of working Texans currently without health insurance. This is a problem for all Americans as the uninsured often use emergency rooms as their primary source of medical care. In fact, a study of emergency room use in Harris County found that 57 percent of the diagnoses made in safety net hospital emergency rooms could have been treated in a physician's office or clinic. This increases health care costs for all Americans. The uninsured are less likely to seek preventive health care and only get care once their problems reach emergency proportions. In fact, nearly 50 percent of uninsured adults have postponed seeking health care because they cannot afford it. Only 15 percent of those individuals with health insurance have postponed care for this reason. It is no surprise that the uninsured and underinsured are generally more expensive to treat because they fall through the cracks in our health care system. Unfortunately, the policies that this Congress has supported only serve to widen those cracks. Despite being faced with record levels of uninsured individuals, this Congress has put Medicaid cuts at the top of the budget agenda. Medicaid is the health insurer of last resort in this country, and subjecting this critical program to budget cuts will only serve to further increase the number of Americans without health insurance. Where does Congress think these folks will go once they are dropped from the Medicaid rolls? The answer is simple: They will join the ranks of the uninsured, and in doing so, they will be three times more likely to postpone health care, three times more likely to forego filling a prescription, and three times as likely to be hounded by collection agents for payments on medical care they do seek out. This is not the way to ensure that our citizens are healthy, productive members of our society. The Federal Government needs to renew its commitment to the most vulnerable members of our society. Faced with record levels of uninsured, we should be adding people to the Medicaid and SCHIP rolls, not dropping them. We should expand the SCHIP program to include parents of these CHIP children. That policy option alone would provide health insurance to 67 percent of CHIP parents in Texas. We should restore funding for the HCAP program, which in my community, has helped enroll an additional 250,000 individuals in Medicaid and CHIP, while also directing the uninsured away from ERs and toward an appropriate health care home. These are programs that work. What does not work is picking a budget number out of thin air and forcing Members to chop away at a program until it fits that number. It is shameful that Congress is balancing the budget on the backs of low- income families. If we are going to get this country's health care system out of the ditch, we must stop digging that ditch.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to read a part of a letter from the National Governors Association to both the Speaker and the Democratic leader and Senator Frist and Senator Reid. It says, ``Reform, however, should not be part of a 2006 fiscal year budget reduction and reconciliation process, especially if it does nothing more than shift additional costs to the States.'' We have a problem with health care costs in our country. Medicaid is one part of it. Medicare costs and private insurance and private health care is actually rising higher faster than Medicaid. Yet what we are doing with this budget resolution is actually penalizing senior citizens, and particularly children, because so much of our children's hospitals, so much of their funding comes from Medicaid because they deal with children totally. I know in Houston, the Texas Medical Center, we have the Texas Children's Hospital, over 50 percent of their funding comes from Medicaid because they take care of children. We have to deal with health care costs, but let us not balance it on the backs of our children and our senior citizens. National Governors Association, December 22, 2004. Hon. Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Harry Reid, Minority Leader-elect, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi: The Nation's Governors look forward to working closely with the Administration and Congress to reform Medicaid. Reforming the Medicaid system is the highest priority for the Governors, and will result in cost savings and efficiencies for both the federal and state governments. Reform, however, should not be part of a 2006 fiscal year budget reduction and reconciliation process, especially if it does nothing more than shift additional costs to states. Governors are committed to administering the Medicaid program in a very cost-effective way, and as equal partners in the program have a tremendous incentive to continue doing so. This is reflected in the fact that the annual growth in Medicaid per capita spending has not exceeded approximately 4.5 percent per year, substantially below the growth rate of private health insurance premiums, which have averaged 12.5 percent per year for the last three years. Total Medicaid costs, however, are growing at a rate of 12 percent per year and now total Medicaid expenditures exceed that of Medicare primarily due to two major factors that are largely beyond the control of states. First, states, over the last four years, have experienced large case load increases of approximately 33 percent. Second, and far more costly to states, are the impacts of long-term care and of the dual eligible population. Medicaid currently accounts for 50 percent of all long-term care dollars and finances the care for 70 percent of all people in nursing homes. Furthermore, 42 percent of all Medicaid expenditures are spent on Medicare beneficiaries, despite the fact that they comprise a small percentage of the Medicaid caseload and are already fully insured by the Medicare program. Benefits for the dual eligible population should be 100 percent financed by Medicare. We agree that maintaining the status quo in Medicaid is not acceptable. However, it is equally unacceptable in any deficit reduction strategy to simply shift federal costs to states, as Medicaid continues to impose sever strains on state budgets. Our most recent survey of states shows Medicaid now averages 22 percent of state budgets. This commitment has caused a strain on funding for other crucial state responsibilities. These funding challenges will become more acute as states absorb new costs to help implement the Medicare Modernization Act for the millions of dual eligible beneficiaries. We look forward to working with you on Medicaid reform. Sincerely, Governor Mark R. Warner, Chairman. Governor Mike Huckabee, Vice Chairman.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today marks the Battle of San Jacinto, the victory of independence for Texas from Mexico--the greatest State in the Union in my opinion. This day reminds the world that Texans refuse oppression from any source. On April 21, 1836, 169 years ago, approximately 900 Texans and Tejanos volunteers overpowered a larger, professional Mexican army. Today, Texans are celebrating all day at the San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site in our congressional district, including impressive historic re-enactments. Less than 100 years after American patriots threw off the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texans and Tejanos succeeded in a similar struggle against a military dictator, General Santa Anna. In the words of the Texas Declaration of Independence, the people's government had been ``forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism.'' Military dictatorships are the world's most notoriously evil governments and the moral justification for the Texas Revolution is equally applicable to certain countries today. Unfortunately, as Texans know, freedom requires great sacrifice. After the tragedy at the Alamo, Texan and Tejano forces retreated, but in late April 1836, they took a stand on the banks of the bayous outside Houston, Texas. As a result of their bravery, the nation, and then the State of Texas were born. Like the American Revolution, the Texan Revolution brought many different people together fighting military oppression. The Texas Revolution proves the bands of freedom are stranger than ethnicity, as many Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad, the Alamo, along the banks of the San Jacinto River, and in the government of the Republic of Texas. Like on July 4th, on San Jacinto Day Texans celebrate the achievements of our patriots, and give thanks for our opportunity to have representative government. Thank you Mr. Speaker, God bless Texas.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today to extend my thanks and gratttude to Hipolito Acosta for his service to Houston, Texas and the United States as District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office during the last three years and his 24 years serving our country. A native Texan, Mr. Acosta was born in Presidio, Texas and started his career with USCIS as a U.S. Border Patrol Officer in Marfa in 1975. Throughout his career he has received numerous awards as well as international recognition for his leadership in customer service and enforcement duties. He is a four-year Navy Veteran and a former member of the Illinois National Guard. He is also one of the most highly honored legacy INS officers, including six Commissioner Awards and the prestigious Newton-Azrak Award for courage and heroism displayed in the line of duty. His domestic career included front line and leadership roles in the fight against alien smuggling in key positions such as Criminal Investigator in Chicago, Special Agent with the EI Paso District and Border Patrol Sector, and as Supervisory Special Agent in Brownsville, Texas. High profile investigations and successful undercover operations involving thousands of smuggled aliens from Central America, Europe and the Middle East were trademarks of his investigative career. In 1989, Mr. Acosta was selected as Assistant Officer in Charge of INS operations in Manila, Philippines, assuming command of the office in February 1991. During his tenure in the Philippines, Mr. Acosta developed relations with host country government officials, to include the Office of the President and was one of six U.S. diplomats to receive high recognition by President Corazon Aquino. While in Manila, he developed the first ever citizenship program for thousands of Philippine World War II veterans. He was highly recognized as the driving force in the citizenship program abroad with the naturalization of over 7,000 applicants. Following his tenure in the Philippines, Mr. Acosta was appointed to Officer in Charge in Monterrey and Ciudad Juarez. Later, as District Director for the INS Mexico City Office, he was responsible for overseeing sixteen different offices in Latin America and the Caribbean with operational jurisdiction over 42 countries, including a pre- inspection station in Aruba and refugee office in Havana, Cuba. In 2002, Mr. Acosta returned to Texas and assumed leadership of the INS Houston District and then became the first District Director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service in Houston. I commend Mr. Acosta for his service to the United States and congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues supporting this amendment say we do not have a crisis. We do have a crisis. Natural gas prices are triple what they should be. We are paying more to heat and cool our homes and also for our raw materials for our chemical industry and all of our industries, so we need to do something. The solution is to either drill more or import it, and LNG is one of ways we can do it. We have a great safety record not only in our own country but worldwide in liquefied natural gas. And it is frustrating when you say you do not want to drill, you do not want to refine, and you do not even want to import. The only way you will get around then is by walking. In Houston, we are too big to walk so we will have to have gasoline and we have to have something to cool our homes in the summer. The low natural gas supply is impacting our jobs and driving up electricity prices causing higher consumer prices. Higher prices are leading to inflation and slow-down worries, which is why Alan Greenspan testified before our committee that the United States needs more LNG. LNG import terminals can be our interstate commerce. That is why we need to have a Federal role, but the States will still have a very important role in this process. States will have influence over the kind and use of facility; the existing and projected population of the local area; the existing and proposed land use near the local area; and the natural and physical aspects of the location. The bill creates new authority for states to inspect LNG terminals for safety and security, beyond what they have in interstate natural gas projects. Low natural gas supply is impacting jobs, driving up electricity prices, and causing higher consumer prices for a variety of goods and services. Higher prices are leading to inflation and slowdown worries, which is why Alan Greenspan testified to our Committee that the U.S. needs more LNG. LNG import terminals are engaged in both foreign and, in most cases, interstate commerce. LNG is a matter of national or, at the very least, regional importance. Approval and siting is properly done in the national interest consistent with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has sited interstate natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act since 1942. States participate in the FERC's National Environmental Policy Act process, and have new authority in this bill to inspect for safety and security. States retain their authority to issue or deny permits under federal statutes such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water Act. This bill takes away no state authority, as long as state permitting agencies issue timely decisions. Let me repeat: State permitting authority remains in place under H.R. 6. States can still deny LNG facilities on their coasts. But they need a reason--Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a postponed vote on MTBE. It is an issue we have been dealing with, at least in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a number of years. MTBE was mandated, maybe not specifically in the Clean Air Act of 1990, but reformulated gas was. And for an area like I have in Houston, we have been using MTBE as a reformulated gas in our gas to clean up our air because it replaced the lead that we used to have because lead was polluting. And now we find out that MTBE does not smell or taste good and that is right. But whatever we have in our gas tanks is not something else we want to smell or taste, either. We may not be able to taste the benzene and everything else. But EPA informed Congress in 1990 that a reformulated oxygenate requirement would be met almost exclusively by MTBE, and congressional statements at the time reflect that knowledge. Nowadays you can use ethanol, which comes a long way, or MTBE. It is true MTBE existed before the Clean Air Act of 1990. In fact, it was first approved by the EPA in 1979 to comply with another Federal gasoline mandate, in reducing lead. EPA followed the legislative history of the Clean Air Act and its scientific analysis and repeatedly reaffirmed approval for MTBE. The reason this bill has this provision in here is because we mandated reformulated gas in certain areas, including the district I represent. We have not had trouble with MTBE in groundwater or surface water pollution, at least in the Houston area. I know some parts of the country have. The oxygenate requirement has done a great deal to clean up our smoggy urban air; and to this day the EPA will talk about the success of it, particularly in the Houston area. MTBE is on the way out and being cleaned up around the country, regardless of the amount of litigation. Tank owners, insurance and State funds are doing the real work, 96 percent of all cleanups according to the EPA. A case in point, the city of Santa Monica is suing its former law firm over the $66 million legal bill for its trouble in suing over MTBE. I guess the concern I have is that MBTE, if it is a defective product, we mandated it. And let me quote from some of the remarks earlier in the Clean Air Act. We had Members who are still sitting Members of Congress who were bragging about, we mandated the oil companies to be able to do stuff, for cleaning up our air; and yet nowadays, 10 years later, 15 years later, we are going to say, no, they are responsible, even though we told them to do it, and it has been successful. My concern about the loss of MBTE, we cannot trade clean air for clean water; we have to have both. And there is a way we can have both, but not by taking away the ability to have MBTE, which is probably the most in use because it is the most efficient in reformulated gasoline. But, again, Congress made a decision to deal with ethanol more than MBTE, and that will happen. This bill allows for fixing the best by using the Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund, and that will go a long way to help us.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources for yielding me this time. This is a perennial amendment we have. This energy bill provides for production, conservation and research, but ANWR is one of the most important production parts. Granted we cannot produce ourselves out of these high energy prices, but we have to produce in our own country if we ever expect to lower the prices. Our Nation needs more energy. Our economy, consumers and workers bid against China, Europe and India's economies for every barrel of Middle Eastern, African and Venezuelan oil. The Congress so far has refused to open promising offshore areas to exploration, even as Cuba, employing Spanish and Chinese energy companies, is drilling 60 miles from the Florida Keys, much closer than we allow American companies to do. No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. Energy production is not like it used to be 50, 25 or even 10 years ago. It is much cleaner and much more scrutinized. Supporting only long-term solutions and conservation is important, but not enough. Our cars get 25 percent of their gas from U.S. lands, but our children will see even less if we do not produce at home. Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East, controlled by OPEC. If they act as a cartel, they will control the world price of oil for the foreseeable future. If we allow domestic production to die out, conservation and research will not save us and we will have to pay a terrible economic price. If we allow production in ANWR, we will see great benefits at a very low, temporary cost and see thousands of good-paying jobs created over the next 25 years. The caribou, bears, birds and other wildlife can thrive just as they have at Prudhoe Bay. Tanker accidents will be prevented by new, double-hulled oil tankers and environmental impacts overall will be much less. Drill sites are much smaller today and we use fewer wells with our new drilling technology. Permanent gravel roads are no longer necessary if we use the winter ice road. The doom and gloom scenarios by opponents of ANWR oil are inaccurate and not based on reality. I have been there many times, Madam Chairman, and I can tell you that we can produce it and the bears and the caribou will be in ANWR just like they are in Prudhoe Bay.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There was pressure to rush this bill out of the committee without a markup, but I am glad the committee made the right decision. We had a 3-day full committee markup where almost every imaginable energy issue was raised, from cow manure energy to ocean power. We even extended daylight savings time to save energy. Overall, there are many beneficial provisions in this bill, such as resolving permit confusion, improving electric reliability, and mandating Federal energy conservation. Importantly, this bill provides incentives to clean coal technology, renewable energies like wind and solar; and it also increases LIHEAP funding authorization to $5 billion for this year. Very quickly, I want to thank the chairman for inclusion of a number of provisions in the bill, such as the provision encouraging the siting on liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is important to energy security to cut into the rising natural gas prices that threaten our economy. The top concern of homeowners and manufacturers in our district are the high natural gas prices. If we keep offshore production limits, we have to have LNG to import from other countries. We included some modern incentives for petroleum coke gasification so we can see what we can do with basically a byproduct, and important coal gasification incentives. Energy diversity brings economy-wide benefits. I commend the authorization of a complex well-testing project at the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center. The ability to tap more resources with fewer wells provides a public benefit for environmental protection. The bill contains a study on LIHEAP reform. Providing energy assistance to families in cold and hot weather is a public necessity, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for accepting two new amendments, one which would require the Department of Energy and the National Cancer Institute to conduct a health assessment of those living in proximity to petrochemical and refinery facilities. Many of my constituents live and work near these facilities. The communities are concerned, and they deserve the most accurate health information about their community. There is a lot to be said about this bill. We have an energy bill for the first time in my 12 years in Congress.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition because the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) is a good member of our committee, and we work on lots of issues together. I represent a blue collar district. We have probably more refineries in the district I represent now than anyone else in the country and those are our jobs, are our tax base and what economic development we have, and they are blue collar jobs. They are minority jobs in our district. I am concerned, though, about what is happening in our country. We continually transfer our blue collar industrial capacity overseas. My concern is we are seeing the same thing happen whether it be with refineries or petrochemical plants just like we have seen with our textiles. It would not be very difficult to move a chemical plant to where they are still flaring natural gas or to have a refinery ship us refined product. That is why I think the provision of the bill is really good, and I think the amendment does a disservice maybe to our whole country because we need to expand our refining capacity, again, reopening those, make them get the permits, but also make sure that we keep those jobs in our country instead of moving overseas.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 483, a bill to rename the courthouse in Brownsville, Texas as the Reynaldo Garza and the Filemon B. Vela courthouse. Filemon Vela was born in Harlingen, Texas in 1935. He served as state district judge in Texas for Cameron and Willacy counties in 1975 until he was appointed as a federal judge by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. He served until 2000 when he retired. Filemon Vela was a strong advocate of education because of his father's strong belief in education. As one of nine children he believed that he would not finish high school, but when his mother died his father motivated him to continue his education. He graduated from Harlingen High School and then went to University of Texas Austin. After serving in the U.S. Army Filemon Vela went to St. Mary's Law school and Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1962. Throughout his career he taped more than 200 radio programs urging children to stay in school and promoting literacy programs. Reynaldo Garza was the first Mexican-American federal judge in the U.S. when he was appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to the South Texas bench. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals, making him the first Mexican-American appointed to that court. He served his lifetime appointment in Brownsville, Texas. Reynaldo Garza contributed many things to the Hispanic community, he was the first Mexican American elected to the Brownsville school board, and he worked with the League of United Latin American Citizens to improve the civil rights of Mexican Americans in Texas. The lifetime accomplishments of both of these men are truly inspirational to us all. By naming the courthouse in Brownsville after them we recognize not only their contribution to the judicial community, but also to the city of Brownsville.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill. This bill will weaken homestead protections currently in place under state laws, hurting my constituents, the citizens of Texas, and the citizens of any other states that have laws protecting individuals' homes valued over $125,000, which is the limit this bill sets. Texas, which has the longest and oldest history of homestead protection laws in our country, has no cap on homestead protection, along with Kansas, Iowa, Florida, and South Dakota. Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Nevada's laws protect home equity of $200,000. Property values across the nation vary widely. The median resale price of a home in California is $215,000. In Nebraska it's $70,200. While I understand there must be a sensible cap on exemptible home equity to ensure the law is not protecting million dollar mansions, $125,000 is unreasonable given the skyrocketing price of real estate in Texas and many other parts of the country. This bill will make bankruptcy even more expensive and burdensome than it already is, on hardworking Americans who have fallen on hard times and seniors on fixed incomes, while doing nothing to address the out of control lending practices by credit card companies. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a bill that will hurt hard-working Texans, and I oppose this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 190, which honors the life and achievements of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was a man of devout faith who used his leadership to help the poor, mediate conflicts around the world, and fight tyranny. As a man who fought both the Nazi and the Communist regime in Poland in pursuit of his own faith, he was a strong advocate for religious tolerance and freedom. His life's work is truly inspiring to all of us. As the most traveled Pope in history, Pope John Paul II visited more than 120 countries and traveled approximately three quarter of a million miles. During these visits he worked to bring peace to regions of the world that were in conflict. He embraced the poor and the oppressed across the world by encouraging us to help those who are less fortunate. His hope for a better world for those who had nothing should remind us all as Pope John Paul II said to ``practice mercy heroically with the lowliest and the most deprived.'' Pope John Paul II was able to rise above political and religious conflict to deliver a message of peace, love, and faith all while promoting equality for all.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during the Easter recess, our office sponsored a town hall meeting for constituents to voice their opinions on the administration's plan to partially privatize Social Security. It was actually held at a community college, at Houston Community College Northeast, that is in our district; and we had both college students and senior citizens there. One of the things that came out of that town hall meeting is the concern that Social Security is not broke; that sure, $1.7 trillion of our national debt is, as the President says, IOUs from Social Security, and my constituents' concern is that if we are going to pay back the 40 percent of our national debt, about $7 trillion, to the many citizens of foreign countries who loan money to the United States, why on this Earth would we not pay back the Social Security trust fund that $1.7 trillion. One thing that came out of that town hall meeting is that the more details they learned about the President's plan, the less they favor it. That might be why the administration has released so few details about their plan. What we know is the plan includes a proposal to allow taxpayers 4 percent or up to $1,000 in private savings accounts that theoretically would yield a greater return than the government bonds on which Social Security is now invested. That proposal sounds all well and good until the American people, in our district particularly, realized that the private accounts would not alleviate any of Social Security's financial challenges. The recent Social Security Trustees Report estimated the Social Security shortfall to be $3.7 trillion over the next 75 years. But the proposal to create these private accounts or personal accounts will not help the bottom line at all. Even the President, before we broke for our Easter recess, admitted that ``personal accounts do not solve the issue.'' What the President needed to add at the end of that sentence is that the private accounts actually make the problem worse. In the first 20 years of the President's plan, the Federal Government will have to borrow $5 trillion to make up for the additional shortfall created by these private or special accounts. And, even worse, if you use the Social Security Administration's assumption, the administration's privatization plan would exhaust the trust fund actually 11 years earlier than currently projected. Through this particular concern, several of my constituents pointed out that the creation of private accounts is voluntary, and that is true. That is, if the folks think that the market is too risky, they do not have to open that private account, and that is true. Private accounts are 100 percent voluntary. But what folks have often heard is that the plan also includes the proposal to change the way the benefits are calculated. This element of that plan, called price indexing, would help pay for the private accounts and reduce the Social Security shortfall. But at the end of the day, the price indexing would result in a cut of guaranteed benefits for all beneficiaries, regardless of whether they choose to enroll in a private or personal account. It would cut everyone's. So under the administration's plan, the private account is voluntary, but the cut in guaranteed benefits is mandatory. Here is how price indexing works. Currently, benefits are tied to wages, which rise higher than prices, giving us an increased standard of living each year. Under the administration's plan, the benefit calculation would be tied to prices and not wages. Under this calculation, Social Security benefits that seniors would receive would replace a smaller portion of their paycheck before retirement. Currently, Social Security benefits make up 42 percent of the average wage earner's salary. Under price indexing, however, Social Security will only replace 27 percent of wages for someone retiring in 2042. The picture is even worse for our children and grandchildren. I am proud to have a granddaughter who was born on February 1 of this year. In 2075 when she is 70 years old, her Social Security benefits would only be 20 percent of her wages if we allow this element of the administration's plan to take effect. So in other words, price indexing lowers what our seniors get in their cost-of-living increase, and they already get so little compared to the cost increases with Medicare that they are having to pay. It is extremely important that the younger generation gets the straight story about how this plan will affect them. According to a poll commissioned by Rock the Vote, once young people learn about the trade-offs that come from private accounts, they will overwhelmingly oppose this risky proposal. Among 18- to 39-year-olds, 63 percent oppose private accounts if it means that the Federal debt will have to increase to pay current benefits. Seventy percent of 18- to 39-year-olds oppose private accounts if they mean cuts in guaranteed benefits the private accounts will not cover. Sixty-five percent of those 18- to 39-year-olds oppose private accounts if it means cuts in guaranteed benefits for all beneficiaries regardless of their participation in the private accounts. With the effect of the administration's plan being a $5 trillion addition to our national debt, a 46 percent cut in guaranteed benefits for all, this proposal does not sound like a good one for anyone, including the constituents that I represent.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.