Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have yielded my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). I would have gladly asked a question, and we would not have had to have this debate if we could have asked the question earlier.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being able to ask a question to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Social Security, but all of Texas educators, teachers, administrators, custodial, cafeteria workers, everyone is affected by this bill. It moves it to be qualified to 5 years. But let me explain the reason. They are not paying into Social Security now. They do not receive anything for what they pay into Social Security. It is for them as being a widow of someone who paid into Social Security. The best example is that someone in my district works at a machine shop for 40 years and they are married to someone who works in a public school system in Texas, that the vast majority of the Texas school districts are not participants in Social Security by law from this Congress. That widow, that person dies, the person who paid in their whole work life into Social Security, their widow is penalized by this legislation. So Texas has found a way around it by letting them go to find a school district and work 1 day. Well, it is a loophole, but, in all honesty, it is a loophole that benefits widows. It is interesting. I want to deal with the big issues in Social Security, but, in all honesty, we need to deal with it without punishing the widows of people who have paid into Social Security their whole work life and may have been married for 40 years and then they get penalized by the Government Pension Offset. This legislation may have good parts in it, but the GPO part is wrong. We ought to deal with the Frost amendment so we can have reform of GPO on this House of Representatives floor without waiting for the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his hard work on this issue and urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and support his amendment. Mr. Speaker, if cosponsoring a bill is any indication of support for an issue, then the Frost amendment should pass by a minimum of 285 votes to 150. That is because 285 Members of this House have cosponsored H.R. 594, which is the underlying bill that the Frost amendment would add to H.R. 743. But now it is time to put our money where our mouth is. I am afraid that the so-called supporters of the GPO repeal are going to turn their back on the hundreds of thousands of public servants who are affected by the Government Pension Offset. As we have heard, the Government Pension Offset unfairly reduces an individual's Social Security spousal benefit if he or she receives a government pension from employment not covered by Social Security. This is unfair and arbitrary and affects individuals at the Federal, State, and local level. Most often it hurts teachers, anyone who works for a school district, firefighters, police officers and other public servants. Our office hears more about the GPO than practically any other issue. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and civil servants are finding out every day that their Social Security spousal benefits are being reduced by the Government Pension Offset. These are people who have dedicated their lives to making America better. When it comes time to retire, they lose out. That is because the GPO unfairly reduces Social Security spousal benefits by two- thirds, regardless of how much your government pension is. This is particularly unfair to low-income folks and widows, the very people Social Security was designed to protect. The Frost amendment would give us a chance to correct this serious problem and make sure that public servants receive a fair spousal benefit. Like I said earlier, this is clearly a good idea, because 285 Members of the House have cosponsored this legislation, and that is why I urge support of the Frost amendment. It is interesting to note we have someone, for example, in my own district who is a teacher for 30 years and has been married for 30 years; and when she retires, when her husband passes away, she is penalized for her spousal benefit under Social Security because she worked at a public school system, not by her choice; but they decided not to pay into Social Security because in 1983 that was one of the groups left out. They did not pay into it, rightfully so, but under Social Security, under our law, if they are married 10 years to an individual, they have a right to those benefits, a spousal benefit. It is interesting that our law punishes a group of teachers, for example, in Texas and Georgia who have said, okay, the law says I have to work 1 day; I will go work 1 day somewhere that pays both the teacher retirement and the Social Security. Is that right? Sure, it is not, but neither is the GPO, and that is why the Frost amendment is so important. We need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and the best time is today, not waiting until the end of this year. We have been waiting for 15 years to reform the Government Pension Offset. So by voting for this legislation today, we are making the Government Pension Offset even worse. That is why the Frost amendment is so important.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment from my friend, Mr. Miller, that would extend temporary unemployment benefits for America's unemployed workers. It is shameful enough that Congress went home during the height of the holiday season and left many unemployed workers with no where to turn. Yet, it's been over a month since these benefits expired. And each week, approximately 80,000 more unemployed workers feel the stinging effects of our inaction. The Republican leadership will tell you we don't need to extend temporary unemployment benefits because the stock market is up, the economy is rebounding and jobs are being created. Tell that to the half a million unemployed workers who've exhausted their benefits since December 31. The Republican argument simply doesn't pass the laugh test. In the past five months, this country has seen net job gains of only 56,000. Any only 1,000 jobs were created in December. It is clear from these numbers that whatever economic growth we are experiencing is not translating into jobs. Mr. Chairman, when this worthwhile program was created, unemployment stood at 5.7 percent and the President's net job loss numbers totaled 2 million. The latest numbers show that unemployment is still at 5.7 percent, and net job loss has increased to 2.3 million. These numbers tell the true job growth story. And no amount of economic rhetoric can convince me that America's unemployed workers aren't in need of 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits. The American worker needs our help. I urge my colleagues, let's do right by America's unemployed and pass this crucial amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Woolsey substitute. I am a strong supporter of both faith-based organizations and Community Services Block Grants. In the district I represent, we have many faith- based groups providing help with food, housing, counseling, and so many other areas. We could not do it without them. America has long been a country of willing volunteers and people eager to give back to their communities and lift up those to whom life has dealt a difficult hand. Many people dedicate themselves to programs that rely on funding from Community Services Block Grants, food pantries, homeless shelters, Meals on Wheels, just to name a few. All of those right now are serving in the district I represent, and they are faith-based. All denominations, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, that I am a member of, all of them. I do not think that we want to believe that individuals who want to help combat poverty or help their fellow people should be denied this work based on their religious beliefs. Thank the Lord, our faith-based organizations have always played a historic role in helping deliver these much-needed services, but their important role in delivering any Federal-supported services should not include the ability to discriminate against potential employees on the basis of religion. Mr. Chairman, everywhere we turn, we see great need in our country. Too many of our citizens go without food or homes to shelter them. These needs know no religious boundaries. It is represented by Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, all beliefs. If Americans want to help meet this great need through our community work, we should embrace each and every one of them and not shut the door in their faces because they hold different beliefs. From my days in Sunday school, the lessons I learned each Sunday morning have remained with me my whole life. Our religious beliefs are best judged not by what denomination we are, but by the actions we take and the manner that we live our lives. The ultimate judgment lies with God, who no doubt looks approvingly on any American who wishes to help their fellow human being. Mr. Chairman, this is not only a moral issue; it is also a constitutional issue. The Civil Rights Act is clear that it is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of religion regarding any condition of employment. My Methodist church, if they only want to hire Methodists, we have the right to do it with our tithes and offering; but you do not have the right to do it with my tax dollars. This Congress should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination of any kind, and that is why I urge my colleagues to adopt the substitute. The substitute in no way hampers the ability of faith-based organizations to participate in Community Service Block Grant programs. I have dozens of them today who participate in it and do not ask whether you are a member of their particular denomination or belief. It ensures that employees that are working in these programs are afforded the same civil rights protections that any other Federal- funded employee receives. On both a moral and constitutional level, voting for this amendment is the right thing to do.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Congress to quit playing politics with the pensions of American workers. This country faces a pension funding crisis in desperate need of the temporary fix provided in the Pension Funding Equity Act. Both chambers of Congress passed H.R. 3108 overwhelmingly, and both the House and the Senate should work in the same bi-partisan fashion in conference to produce a bill that can quickly be sent to the President. By no means should we simply ignore the partisanship and lack of good will that has permeated Congress in recent years and thwarted legislative progress. But we also shouldn't address that larger issue by holding hostage the pensions of hard working Americans. All of us agree that the new rate for calculating pensions must ensure that they are adequately funded. But the fact of the matter is, we need a temporary fix now, both to protect our pensions and ensure that we don't act hastily in determining the final rate. Mr. Speaker, our workers are relying on us to pass H.R. 3108 quickly. The temporary funding formula expired at the beginning of this year. And if we don't act now, by April 1, companies will be forced to add inflated amounts to their pension plans, a risky requirement that could force many companies into bankruptcy. I would also encourage my colleagues on the conference committee to include Senate-passed language that addresses multi-employer plans. These plans are entered into through collective bargaining agreements between unrelated employers. Multi-employer plans are crucial to employees of small businesses because the collaborative agreements allow small employers to provide defined benefit plans. These plans also provide employees with portable pensions as they move from job to job within the same industry. The Senate language would provide the temporary relief that multi- employer plans need to address any funding problems and ensure that these important, flexible pension plans remain available to America's workers. Now is the time to pass this pension legislation. We literally can't afford not to. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can't afford to take on additional pensions. American corporations can't afford to make inflated payments. And, most importantly, our American workers can't afford to lose their pensions. Mr. Speaker, let's end the political games and pass this temporary fix to give us the time and flexibility we need to set a permanent replacement for the 30 year Treasury bond rate.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1385, legislation which would allow the United States Postal Service to continue its successful breast cancer semipostal stamp. Proceeds from this stamp directly benefit breast cancer research. Breast cancer is a serious concern for all of us. We all have friends, family members, constituents and colleagues who have battled this serious disease. Breast cancer does not discriminate--Americans of every age, race, religion, gender, economic standing and political affiliation are affected by this disease. The figures are alarming. An estimated three million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer--one-third of whom do not know they have this deadly disease. It is the most common form of cancer in America, excluding skin cancers. More than 240,000 new cases--1 every 3 minutes--occur in the United States each year. More than 40,000 women will die from the disease. One of our strongest weapons against breast cancer is early awareness and treatment. Women who are screened and diagnosed early can begin treatment before the disease becomes more advanced. That is why raising awareness of the disease is so critical. The breast cancer stamp has clearly helped to raise awareness and funds for this serious disease. Since it was first created in 1998, more than 421 million stamps sold, raising $29.5 million for biomedical breast cancer research. The alarming rate at which breast cancer is detected mandates that we continue to work toward a cure for this disease which is claiming so many lives worldwide. Enactment of H.R. 1385 will further enable research in an effort to increase the survival rate. This disease calls for each of us to take a stand in an effort to find a cure and bring some solace to a disease that has tormented our mothers, wives, aunts, sisters and daughters. The importance of this stamp has immeasurable value and I strongly support enactment of this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to join the 145 cosponsors of this bill by passing H.R. 1385.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American worker. As we wrap up our work for the year, 8.7 million Americans are without jobs this holiday season. The administration keeps promising economic growth will bring job growth. Yet, even on the heels of an impressive third quarter of economic growth, the job market has not taken off. The Labor Department reports that only 57,000 jobs were added to the economy last month, a figure that represents only one-third of economists' prior expectations. We all know there are deeper economic problems contributing to the loss of American jobs. Our trade policies have produced record-level trade deficits and have only encouraged American companies to send good-paying jobs overseas where they take advantage of cheap labor. However, as we sit here with 1 day left in the session, we need to do what we can today to help better the lives of the American workers. We all know that the administration talks about cutting taxes and putting money in our pockets, but typically the American working class gets very little of this extra money. What I want to know is if the administration is so intent on putting money in our pockets, why they are eliminating the overtime provisions that are in this omnibus bill we are talking about today. Why will they not extend the unemployment benefits? These are policies that give America's workers more money every single pay period. And if there is ever a need for extra cash, it is during the holiday season.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of my constituent Gustavo Montejano (Mon-tay-HAH-no) and his two daughters, Katia and Esmerelda. Gustavo Montejano is a true hero. When his family's home caught fire early on Monday morning, Gustavo rushed his wife and 2-year-old son out of the house. He then went back to rescue his two daughters, who were still asleep inside. Unfortunately, the second story collapsed, and the smoke and flames overtook him before he could get his girls to safety. As the headline from the Houston Chronicle reads, ``He died hugging his two girls.'' While we are all deeply saddened for the Montejano family's loss, I know that those girls were comforted by their father's presence, and that they died together knowing that he loved them so much that he was willing to sacrifice his own life trying to save them. Gustavo's family remembers him as a kind and generous man, who took in his sister and her eight children when they needed a home. Despite the fact that he had been laid off from his job, he helped support his sister's family as well as his own, helping to pay bills and care for the children. I know his wife, Maribel, and 2-year-old son are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Gustavo was, and that he died a hero's death. His loss will be felt by all of Galena Park, and I ask that you remember the Montejano family in your thoughts and prayers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so- called Medicare prescription drug conference report. Much as I want to support legislation creating a prescription benefit for our Nation's seniors, I cannot support this bill. First, the bill does absolutely nothing to drive down the outrageous costs of prescription drugs. In fact, it expressly prohibits Medicare from negotiating for 40 million seniors lower prices, and yet it still allows the insurance companies to do it. But they prohibit the government from doing it. The benefit has a huge doughnut hole that forces seniors to pay all their costs from $2,250 to $5,100. I guess I am so frustrated with this bill the best I can do is read a poem about America's Greatest Generation. Rest gently, America's Seniors You saved democracy in WW II You survived a depression, too. You built this Nation to a great world power so it is right you rest at this late hour. But while you slumber There are voices raised In our Capitol yonder Of your high costs for your drugs of wonder. This proposed legislation Considered in the dark of night Will not reduce your cost a ``widow's mite.'' Awake you will from your night's slumber To repay and respond to those who plunder Your hard-earned Medicare benefits. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called Medicare prescription drug conference report. Much as I want to support legislation creating a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors, I cannot support this bill. The bill does absolutely nothing to drive down the outrageous costs of prescription drugs. In fact, the legislation expressly prohibits Medicare from using the negotiating power of 40 million seniors to demand reasonable prices for our Nation's seniors but allows insurance companies to negotiate. The benefit has a huge ``donut hole'' that will force seniors to pay for all of their costs from $2,250 until their costs exceed $5,100. So if you have drug costs that are $300-400 per month, you're only going to get a benefit for the first half of the year. The rest of the year, you'll continue to pay premiums, but get absolutely nothing from them. And finally, this plan would require Medicare to compete with private plans that would be paid more to treat healthier seniors. There is no way Medicare could honestly be expected to compete with these overpaid plans, and I think the bill's crafters did that on purpose. Mr. Speaker, this legislation leaves people worse off than they were before it. The CBO estimates that 2.7 million employees will lose their retiree benefits. More than 6.4 million Medicaid beneficiaries will lose their wrap- around coverage. And in the long run, seniors will be left shouldering a significantly higher portion of their health care costs. This is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know we are getting down to the last few minutes, but, like my colleague from Michigan, I ate a lot of Spam. I am holding up my gift of Spam from my cosponsor. Like him, the only way I could ever survive Spam was with A-1 steak sauce. I remember the story that my first time, somebody showing up at a town hall meeting and saying, I'm tired of spam and I said, thank goodness I haven't had to eat it in years. But I do remember it tasted pretty good in college when I needed it. But now as my colleague from Michigan said, spam will not have a bad name for people who use the Internet. Again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for providing me a can of Spam. I am not going to cook it. I am going to put it on the wall so hopefully I will not have to.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some of the good things about this agreement that is in the bill S. 877. Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information and deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and prosecuted. After we enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to harvest e- mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the threat of prosecution. Our bill cracks down on automated ``dictionary'' spam attacks, the spam version of the auto-dialer that sends spam to every possible e- mail combination. Most importantly for our families, and something that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) experienced with her daughter, this bill requires warning labels on sexually explicit e- mail; and we will be able to refuse further e-mail without having to view the offensive content. It will go after spammers again from all angles, from the Federal Trade Commission, from the States attorneys general and also Internet service providers who, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said, 50 percent of the networks oftentimes are unsolicited e-mail. They will be able to sue for damages of $250 per e-mail or a total of $6 million. It is there so our attorneys general have the ability and our ISPs will do it. Finally, after the success of the Do-Not-Call list, the FTC is to plan a Do-Not-Spam registry within 6 months and will implement it if it is feasible. Like my colleagues, our staff worked hard on it in both our committees, Judiciary and Energy and Commerce. I thank my personal staff, Drew Wallace, for working on this with all the folks involved.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of S. 877, the compromise which has been worked out on the antispam legislation. First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for the many years of work she has put in with me and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I also thank the leadership of our committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their strong commitment to this effort which the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and I began almost 5 years ago. She had a terrible personal experience with spam, and I heard from constituents some of the same stories, and my wife and I have received some of that same unsolicited spam on our own personal e-mail account. This legislation will set the fair and clear standards for e-mail marketing that consumers and the Internet need desperately. The future of e-mail is at stake, and the time to act is now. Congress is delivering the enforcement tools we need. Importantly, this compromise has clear definitions of commercial e- mail which the FTC can enforce and any individual consumer's request to not receive further commercial e-mail from a sender will have the force of the law. Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information and deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and will be prosecuted as such. After we enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to harvest e-mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the threat of prosecution. There are so many good things in this bill that it is hard to go over all of them in 2 minutes. We will come after spammers from all angles. State attorneys general are empowered, and Internet service providers are empowered to seek damages up to $250 per e-mail or $6 million total. After the success of the FTC's Do-Not-Call list, the Do-Not-Spam registry implementation is feasible. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and our ranking member, and I also thank the many cosponsors of our original bill, H.R. 2515, on the antispam effort.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of the session because we always want to get finished. We did a martial law on Medicare so we could pass a 600-page document without having to digest it. Now we have a continuing resolution martial law. But I really want to talk about the prescription drug provision in Medicare, because that is what will come up later. Our Houston Chronicle wrote an interesting editorial today which talks about the ``scribbled prescription'' in the bill that we are going to consider as an ``intended cure could be worse than Medicare disease.'' It talks about the provisions of this bill we are going to consider tonight is stingy because it does not begin until 2006; and that there is such a donut hole in the middle that people will lose, if they have $300 a month in prescription drugs, because they will fall into that donut hole. So it is stingy. The critics point out that providing a drug component to Medicare encourages businesses to dump their retirees. I had a constituent call me the other day from a utility company who said he was worried his retiree benefits for prescription drugs would be cut. And I said unless you have a collective bargaining agreement, that could happen. A concern I have, as they quote in the Chronicle editorial, is that the ``AARP, the most powerful senior citizen organization, has endorsed'' this proposal. Again, I am quoting the Houston Chronicle, ``But, as the plan before Congress offers such limited help for seniors with high prescription costs, it's no wonder so many people believe AARP's decision was motivated more by its own political dealmaking than concern for its 35 million members' best interests.'' And that is a direct quote. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress, a prescription drug bill was the goal, to pass something; but this bill actually goes in the wrong direction. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. HMOs do it, the Veterans Administration does it, companies do it; and yet now we are prohibiting Medicare from doing it by law. That ought to outrage our seniors, including those 35 million AARP members.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I regret I was unavoidably detained and missed the three votes earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 656, approving H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall 657, approving H.R. 453, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall 658, approving S. 1156, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member and the chairman of the committee for working with us on this. The National Flood Insurance Program is absolutely essential for the financial security and quality of life for millions of Americans who live near our coasts and rivers, and it is vital to our flood-prone areas. And I can relate to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Chairman Tauzin) concern because being a neighbor of Louisiana, we have a problem with flooding too, although we in Texas were not thrown out of Nova Scotia. We were typically run off, though, because we owed somebody in some other State. That is why we ended up in Texas originally. So I am pleased that this legislation has been changed to reflect a more realistic definition of repetitive-loss properties, four strikes instead of the punitive two strikes in the original legislation. And my community will also be glad to know that people who refused a buyout for whatever reason will not be denied Federal disaster assistance should they find their lives ruined by a future event. As for folks who reach the definition of repetitive-loss properties and do receive a buyout offer from the Federal Government, the Bereuter substitute now allows for communities conducting these buyouts to offer replacement values when appropriate. I want to express my appreciation again to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the subcommittee and also to the gentleman from Nebraska for their support of this important provision. I also want to note the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Bell) also assisted in this. When FEMA came in to do a large number of buyouts after Tropical Storm Allison in Harris County in 2001, which flooded a total of 72,500 homes in Houston, Harris County, we had problems finding money so folks getting bought out could afford another home. FEMA realized the necessity of replacement value in certain cases in my area and other areas. FEMA had to scramble to find funding from other programs, HUD programs and other sources, which is not ideal. Some of my constituents, and again I do not have a wealthy area, actually received offers of $12,000 for their property because that was fair market value, which was completely inadequate for them to purchase anything outside the floodplain. So I am pleased that the legislation incorporates our provision allowing communities to offer replacement value to flood victims when they realize that the fair market value is inadequate and FEMA agrees with that assessment. Without this provision, FEMA would have to deal with more homeowner appeals of buyout offers, and the time and the cost for repetitive-loss buyout projects would increase. Again, the bill has so many good things about it, not just a typical extension of the authorization. And again I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on the legislation and being willing to address the needs of the flood victims. I am proud to support H.R. 253.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and especially to honor those who have bravely fought and given their lives in Iraq. Texans have a long history of serving in our military, and the same holds true today in Iraq. There have been more men and women from Texas who have given their lives in Iraq, than from any other State other than California. Since the U.S. launched its first airstrike in Iraq, 273 Americans have been killed in hostile action; 158 of those deaths coming after the President declared major combat to be over on March 1. As of Friday, the Defense Department knew of 34 Texans who had been killed serving their country in Iraq. Our hearts go out to the family members of these individuals who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country: Sgt. Edward Anguiano, 24, of Los Fresnos, was killed in action on March 23; Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Arnold, 30, of Spring, was killed in action on March 22; Spc. Richard Arriaga, 20, of Ganado, was killed in an action on September 18; Sgt. Michael Barrera, 26, of Von Ormy, was killed in action on October 28; Staff Sgt. Gary Collins, 32, of Hardin, was killed in action on November 8; Capt. Eric Das, 30, of Amarillo, was killed in action on April 7; Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, of El Paso, was killed in action on March 23; Master Sgt. George Fernandez, 36, of El Paso, was killed in action on April 2; Pvt. Robert Frantz, 19, of San Antonio, was killed in action on June 17; Spc. Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza, 26, of Texas, was killed in action on February 25; Pfc. Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, 21, of Houston, was killed in action on October 1; Chief Warrant Officer Second Class Scott Jamar, 32, of Granbury, was killed in action on April 2; Staff Sgt. Phillip Jordan, 42, of Brazoria, was killed in action on March 23; Cpl. Brian Kennedy, 25, of Houston, was killed in action on March 21; Spc. James Kiehl, 22, of Comfort, was killed in action on March 23; Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Mata, 35, of Amarillo, was killed in action on March 23; Cpl. Jesus Medellin, 21, of Fort Worth, was killed in action on April 7; Sgt. Daniel Methvin, 22, of Belton, was killed in action on July 26; Pfc. Anthony Miller, 19, of San Antonio, was killed in action on April 7; Sgt. Keelan Moss, 23, of Houston, was killed in action on November 2; Spc. Joseph Norquist, 26, of San Antonio, was killed in action on October 9; Staff Sgt. Hector Perez, 40, of Corpus Christi, was killed in action on July 24; Second Lt. Jonathan Rozier, 25, of Katy, was killed in action on July 19; Cpl. Tomas Sotelo, Jr., 20, of Houston, was killed in action on June 27; Spc. James Wright, 27, of Morgan, was killed in action on September 18; Pfc. Stephen Wyatt, 19, of Kilgore, was killed in action on October 13; Pfc. Chad Bales, 20, of Coahoma, died on April 3. Spc. Zeferino Colunga, 20, of Bellville, died on August 6. 1st Sgt. Joe Garza, 43, of Robstown, died on April 28. Spc. John Johnson, 24, of Houston, died on October 22. Spc. Christian Schulz, 20, of Colleyville, died on July 11. Spc. Joseph Suell, 24, of Lufkin, died on June 16. Sgt. Melissa Valles, 26, of Eagle Pass, died on July 9. Sgt. Henry Ybarra, 32, of Austin, died on September 11. These men and women gave their lives defending their country and fighting to liberate a country that has never experienced freedom. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of these individuals. They served their country bravely, and they will forever be remembered as heroes.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us is the first comprehensive energy bill in over 10 years, and it improves our energy security for the entire country. There is a lot of room for disagreement on energy policy, and I would have drafted the bill differently, but I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill because it increases our energy security. It is interesting, because we hear that people do not like energy companies. Well, they do not want to produce, they do not want to transport, they do not want to refine, whether it is electricity, gas, or oil; and what they do not want, they do not want to produce computers. What if we heard we did not want to produce computers or steel or autos? We still have to in a vibrant economy. Congress is always willing to help the steel industry that I vote for, the high- tech industry that I vote for, the aviation industry that I vote for, the agriculture industry. Yet when we hear about the energy industry, all we can say is, oh, they are just those rich companies. Well, let us look at our agriculture policy and some of our other policies. A strong economy is not going to continue to be strong without a strong domestic energy production. This bill has a number of important incentives to improve our domestic supply of conventional energy sources. It allows for expensing of geological seismic work so we can look better for the industry. Faster depreciation for natural gas pipelines, deductions for independent oil and gas drilling activity. Royalty relief for marginal wells and deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which is where we are producing most of the energy offshore, since my colleagues in California and whoever else does not want it produced off their coast; but they do not mind driving their cars with it. The bill makes a number of improvements in our electricity market. We are moving the national electricity market towards more what I consider a Texas model, meaning more open access to transmission systems for all power producers, leading to a competitive wholesale market for electricity. More choices and no blackouts. People wonder why MTBE producers are granted a safe harbor and grants to assist conversions. The Clean Air Act that everyone defends provided for oxygenates that included MTBE. That is why we need to deal with that, because it was required by law 10 years ago. People wonder why MTBE producers are granted safe harbor and grants to assist in conversion of eligible facilities to new products. The reason is that oxygenates were required by the Clean Air Act because they clean our air, but the properties of oxygenates make them vulnerable in leaking tanks. The public policy problem here is the leaking tanks and the unused tank repair money in the LUST (Leaking Tank) Trust Fund. I also want to note H.R. 6's provision to study the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Frankly, I've long-urged this, and look forward to its enactment. It's a fact: extreme weather kills. Heat's particularly deadly. In 1999 alone, nearly 500 deaths resulted from extreme heat, while seven were attributed to cold. The Centers for Disease Control advises that home cooling effectively protects against heat-related death and injuries. CDC suggests ``exposure to air conditioning for even a few hours a day will reduce the risk of heat-related illness.'' As more Americans live within urban heat domes, and move to warmer climates, LIHEAP must respect our population and health science alike. LIHEAP now fails to reach most qualified Americans wherever they live. This stems both from inadequate funds and their apportionment. As the Secretary undertakes this analysis, it is important that the study identified and assesses: Biases within formula toward heating or cooling, and resulting regional effects; LIHEAP's ability to adjust as Americans move about the country; the New or Old formulas' ability to accommodate changes in energy costs; ``home energy burden'' as an alternative means to guide distributions; extreme temperatures' effect upon human mortality and health, and LIHEAP's ability to protect at-risk Americans from these effects. The Secretary's study offers a step toward reform. While woefully long in coming, it's an important opportunity to improve this essential program--which I welcome. I urge my colleagues to unite in the support of energy security for our country. Millions of jobs, including manufacturing jobs are very much at stake here today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations conference report, which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th District of Texas. It was flooding down in Texas yesterday, and this bill is urgently needed down in my hometown of Houston. This bill provides $35.5 million for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, which will allow our Nation's second largest port to continue to grow and handle the heavy energy and petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the smooth economic functioning of our Nation. The Port of Houston is home to the single largest petrochemical complex in the country, with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 percent of the Nation's petrochemical capacity. By increasing the capability of the ship channel to handle newer, larger tankers more safely, Congress will directly increase the energy security of our Nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. We need to obtain an additional $12 million in reprogramming funding next year as the construction on the ship channel nears completion. The ship channel is one of the primary economic engines in my district and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of thousands of jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands across the State. For flood control, this legislation provides $750,000 for flood protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8.000 homes flooded in the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to moderate income. The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during that event occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start moving dirt down there as soon as possible. This bayou came very close to topping its banks just yesterday. I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of both my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and also my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in the concern about what happened in the Medicare conference committee on prescription drugs. It is sad that we came here to talk about a prescription drug plan for seniors, but we are actually going to take it away from them in the process. But the reason I am here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to talk about the problem we have in our country with the unemployment. Mr. Speaker, as we embark on what we hope will be our last week in sessions before the holiday recess, I rise to warn my colleagues about the ghost of Christmas Past, the economic mistakes that Congress and this administration have made on the eve of past holidays. Let us take time to learn from those mistakes and not recreate them. I can say with confidence that each Member of this Chamber was pleased to hear the impressive economic growth figures for July through September. Over the past 3 years, this country has suffered through some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, and it was certainly uplifting to see the reports of 7.2 percent growth in gross domestic product. While we remain optimistic about an economic rebound for the country, I, however, caution my colleagues against relying on the sustainability of this economic growth. Economic indicators show that these figures were the result of consumer spending and a tremendous boost in the housing market. Yet with consumer spending outpacing consumer income, it is clear that spending cannot fuel our economic growth indefinitely. Let us remember our reaction to similar news in 2002. After months of job losses and a dismal economic growth, the country boasted growth of 5 percent in the first quarter of 2002. Despite our optimism, however, job losses continued and the next quarter yielded a 1.3 percent growth. This time last year we were celebrating third quarter growth of 4 percent, and like today, entering the holidays with high hopes. Needless to say, our hopes were dashed and the country has since endured the worst job conditions in 20 years. These are our ghosts of Christmas Past, the flurry of mistaken optimism that failed to deliver on its economic promises. Like the optimism of Christmas Past, this recent economic growth belies the fact that our manufacturing sector has cut jobs for the 39th straight month. My State of Texas, with 1.6 million lost jobs, ranks third in the amount of manufacturing jobs lost since September of 2000. While the country may be making modest gains in employment, 6 percent of America's workers are still unemployed. Almost one-quarter of these 8.8 million people have been out of work for more than 6 months. These figures do not even count the discouraged workers, 462,000 Americans who have completely given up looking for jobs and are no longer on our unemployment roles. Fortunately, many former unemployed workers have found jobs, but we must examine the kind of jobs they are turning to; 4.8 million Americans work part-time, but only because they cannot find full-time work, and many of these workers are former engineers, former computer technicians who previously earned up to $60,000 a year, but now must settle for $7.50 an hour at a retail store. No amount of economic statistics can hide the realities that these people face. Our unemployed workers are hurting. Our unemployed families are draining their savings to survive. And this Congress holds in its hands the ability to extend their unemployment benefits. Let me remind my colleagues that the holiday season is the time of the year when we give thanks for our blessings and extend our hearts to the less fortunate. Last year, that important lesson must have been lost on the majority's leadership, because Congress packed up for the year without extending unemployment benefits. That is right. Congress left town to enjoy the holidays and in doing so, left America's unemployed workers in the cold. Mr. Speaker, this year is no different. Unfortunately, if we do not act soon, the Ghost of Christmas Past will be forced to remind us of the tremendous mistake we made by withholding these benefits last year. Even Scrooge learned from his mistakes. I implore the administration and my colleagues to let us take a hard, realistic look at our economy and make sure that any recovery helps the Americans who have been most hurt by this downturn, and above all, let us pass the extension of the temporary unemployment benefits before we adjourn for the holidays. It is the right thing to do for our economy and for America's unemployed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place in the Record a statement in offering my congratulations to the Rice University baseball team for winning the College World Series. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Rice University Baseball team. An exemplary group of young men, the Rice team won its first baseball national championship this year and showed the true grit needed to win the College World Series. The Owls have been no stranger to the College World Series, appearing with the best of college baseball for 4 out of the last 7 years. The championship eluded them, however, until this year when they finished the regular season with an impressive 58-12 record. Thirty of those wins came during a remarkable winning streak. And being a University of Houston graduate, it pains me to admit that the Owls' streak began with a 3-0 win over my beloved Cougars. However, if we had to lose to a cross-town rival, I'm glad that it was one who went on to win the national championship. The national championship was even sweeter for Houstonians considering that the Owls crushed a Stanford team that had made its third trip to the finals in the past 4 years. And in winning the final game 14-2, the Rice team secured the largest margin of victory in any College World Series final game. Without a doubt, Rice's national championship is a well-deserved honor for a first-rate team. My congratulations go out to the Owls, along with my best wishes for a successful 2004 season in defense of their title.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct made by my good friend and Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Congresswoman Capps, which would instruct conferees to drop privatization provisions and direct the savings to make sure physicians are paid adequately. One of the most controversial provisions being debated in the Medicare prescription drug conference is one that would require Medicare to open to competition from the private sector in 2010. This provision builds on previous proposals to incorporate private plans into the Medicare program, such as the Medicare + Choice plan that was created in 1997. Now they always say that those who do not learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them. Unfortunately, if conferees move forward on this path, they will most certainly repeat the mistakes of the past. First, let us not forget that the Medicare program was first created because the private industry couldn't provide meaningful affordable health insurance to our Nation's seniors. Even more recent attempts to use private plans have failed. Between 1999 and 2003, 2,400,000 beneficiaries lost Medicare+Choice coverage, as health plans scaled back or ended their participation in the program. For seniors who rely on continuity of coverage, changing plans and doctors every year is really not an option. And in many areas of the country, especially the more rural areas, HMOs have been pulling out and many seniors do not have an HMO option. And claims that this will really save any money are deceptive at best. According to CBO, this whole program is expected to save at best $1,600,000,000 over the next 10 years--less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of Medicare spending over that period. It does not add one year to the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. So why this grant experiment? What's to gain by moving Medicare from the traditional government run program that has worked so well for the better part of the past four decades? I would say nothing. There is nothing to gain by this provision. But there is plenty to lose. For the seniors who rely on this program to get the health care services they need, they could lose everything. Economic security, quality of life, their health, and even their lives. All of this for an ideological effort to dismantle the program by the very opponents who for years have want the program to ``wither on the vine.'' This is unacceptable Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to reject privatization efforts, support the Capps Motion to Instruct, and stand up for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, under current law, oil and natural gas exploration and production activities do not have to do the extensive stormwater permitting that is required for large residential or commercial developments. The provision in question in the energy bill clarifies what is current law. Oil and gas drill site activity is not the same as residential and commercial building construction and should not have to do the same permits. It is unnecessary, and the loss to our domestic oil and natural gas supplies would be severe. This motion to instruct is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. All the provision in the energy bill does is clarify that the definition of oil and natural gas exploration and production includes the preparation work for that exploration and production. The provision in the energy bill does not roll back the Clean Water Act in any way. If a producer discharges reportable quantities of any hazardous substances in stormwater, they have to do stormwater permitting. If a producer's site discharges stormwater that contributes to a water quality violation, they have to do stormwater permitting. If there is a production site that I find out in my district that is actually polluting, then I will have them investigate it. That is under current law. And they should be. The result of this policy, if we adopt this motion to instruct, is that we would have less domestic energy and higher natural gas prices. And with natural gas prices as high as they already are, the effects of this motion would now be very serious on the manufacturing jobs, not only in my own district that depend on affordable natural gas, but all over the country, whether it is in California or whether you are on the east coast. We do not have a choice on where to get our natural gas. If it is by nature, it is by nature. We need to produce it where it is, and hopefully it will be more domestically. The opportunities for imports of natural gas from Mexico and Canada and overseas are limited. So we are going to have to depend on our own resources even more. It is going to be hard to do that. If we are going to have to depend on our own resources, it is going to be hard to do that with a bad regulatory policy. The EPA, if they know that there is pollution already in an oil and gas site, they can go out. In California, that seems like where a lot of these motions to instruct come from; they can go out and investigate. If there is pollution, they can be cited. But do not make them go ahead and hinder what industrial production we are trying to do right now. That is all this does is restate what is current law, Mr. Speaker. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the Filner motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my neighbor in Houston's motion to instruct conferees to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is the crown jewel of America's biomedical research system. Thanks to incredible work done at NIH, Americans are living longer, enjoying a better quality of life, and witnessing cures and treatment for diseases that once meant certain death. The Congress made a commitment to build on the success of the NIH by doubling its budget over the past 5 years, and I congratulate the appropriations process. I was a strong supporter of that effort, and I am glad that the President signed that fifth and final installment last year. But, in all honesty, 2.5 percent is an embarrassment. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is a saying we have in some rural areas, Don't eat your seed corn. That is what we are doing here. The NIH research is the seed corn for our biomedical successes. If we do not continue to provide much more than 2.5 percent, then we are eating our seed corn in our country. That should not happen, because, in the long run, and even in the short run, our constituents' health will directly be affected. Mr. Speaker, this is the smallest increase in 18 years for the NIH, a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases; and that is why I say, let us not eat our seed corn. Let us provide the opportunity for us and our children and our parents to continue to benefit from the success of NIH. This leaves almost no room for any projects. According to NIH, just maintaining ongoing research projects will require funding increases totaling $652 million in FY 2004. That would eat up the majority of the $673 million increase in the bill. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important that we provide much more money to NIH. Again, I thank the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Bell) for providing this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my Houston colleague's motion to instruct conferees to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH is the crown jewel of America's biomedical research system. Thanks to the incredible work done at NIH, Americans are living longer, enjoying better quality of life, and witnessing cures and treatment for diseases that once meant certain death. The Congress made a commitment to build on the success of the NIH by doubling its budget over the past five years. I was a strong supporter of that endeavor, and was proud that last year, the President signed the fifth and final installment of that promise. But I, like my colleagues, was terribly disappointed that this historic increase was followed by an embarrassing increase of only 2.5 percent. lThis is the smallest percentage increase in 18 years and a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH received in recent years under the bipartisan program to double the medical research budget. This proposed increase doesn't even cover the costs of what it'll take to keep up with inflation. And it leaves almost no room for any new projects. According to NIH, just maintaining ongoing research projects will require funding increases totaling $652 million in FY 2004. That would eat up the majority of the $673 million increase in the bill. If we are really committed to providing the investments necessary to maintain our momentum, we must provide at least an 8-10 percent increase in NIH funding. I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Bell's motion, and urge conferees to keep the momentum going by providing a sufficient increase for NIH.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my growing frustration with the ongoing negotiations to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit. This could be the largest expansion of this program since the inception almost 40 years ago. Changes to this program will affect every senior in every District. Unfortunately, leaders of the conference committee only seem interested in pushing their own agenda. They are not listening to Members on this side of the aisle, and they are not listening to the growing numbers of senior citizens. We have to find out from media reports that our colleagues are considering provisions to increase premiums, means test the program and ultimately privatize Medicare. If these media reports are to be believed, then the proposed benefit is even worse than what initially passed this House floor by one vote. Combined costs of the premiums, deductibles and copays amount to $1,300 per senior, just for $2,000 worth of coverage. That means that the government pays $700 and our seniors pay $1,300, almost twice as much. Mr. Speaker, my seniors do not like the sounds of any of these proposals. They are already paying 22 percent of their out-of-pocket costs on health care, and even though they may vote for a Democratic Member of Congress, they still deserve to have their voices heard. I urge my conferees to listen to their House and Senate colleagues and do a bipartisan bill that provides seniors with the relief they need.