Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which urges Congress to increase federal funding for Type 1 diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is a devastating illness that affects over 1 million Americans, many of whom are diagnosed as children. This serious disease robs children of their innocence and independence, and burdens its victims with a lifetime of finger-sticks, shots, and fear of dreaded complications. Even with a strict regimen of insulin injections, blood- glucose monitoring, diet and exercise, people with Type I diabetes are at severe risk for blindness, kidney failure, amputations, heart disease and stroke. The burden of diabetes is felt by all Americans. Americans spend $105 billion each year on the direct and indirect costs of this disease. One of every four Medicare dollars is spent on beneficiaries with diabetes, and one in ten health care dollars overall are spent on individuals with this disease disease. There is great promise that a cure for Type 1 can be found in the near future. Advancements in genetic research, transplantation and immunology, and research into potential vaccines all hold the potential to eliminate Type 1 diabetes. But if we are to find a cure, we in Congress must find the money to pay for it. The Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), a Congressional appointed panel of experts in diabetes research, issued a report in 1999 that indicates the need for a significant increase in diabetes research. The DRWG recommended a $4.1 billion increase for diabetes research over a five year period. Congress must heed this report. This legislation I am introducing today recognizes the particular burden of Type 1 diabetes, and the need to follow the recommendations of the DRWG. Mr. Speaker, full funding for diabetes research will help eradicate this devastating illness, save billions of health care dollars, and end the unnecessary suffering of millions of Americans. During the previous Congress, this legislation was passed by unanimous consent, but with the pending budget fight and potential cuts to the NIH budget, it is imperative that the Congress raise its voice in support of finding a cure for Type 1 diabetes. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in our fight against this disease.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my Ohio colleague could not say Texas. He just wanted to say Houston. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, and I am frustrated like a lot of Members, one because we do not have an opportunity to have additional amendments. I thank our chairman for allowing us to let democracy work its will in our committee. We had a long hearing all day. But here on the floor we do not have that option. The same thing happened last year on prescription drugs. It is frustrating. We are fighting for democracy all over the world, but we do not get to have a voice here on the floor of the House with an alternative. I have a district in Texas, and we have a medical malpractice crisis. Of course, we have gone in and out of this for the last 30 years, but it has been dealt with by our State legislature in Texas, and literally as we stand here today, there is legislation that is out of the committee on the floor of the House for consideration that will solve our problem in Texas where it should be dealt with. Thirty-seven States, including my home State of Texas, are considering legislation that would address the malpractice situation. We do not need Congress to tell us what to do. We can deal with it. If Congress makes a mistake with H.R. 5, and I consider it a mistake, it is one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best for all 50 States, instead of letting the States deal with it. The California experience that my colleagues on the Republican side talk about so successful, it was California, as hard as it is for a Texan to say they did something good, but it works. We do not need to tell California or Texas or any other State what they can do. They can deal with it, instead of us dealing with it here. But let me talk about H.R. 5 just a little bit. It does not deal with medical errors, we have separate legislation on that; it does not stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits; and it does not help us deal with physician shortages. That is why it should be voted down.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our 1-minutes are designed for us to talk about things that are happening in our districts or whatever issues may be important for the day. I wanted to talk about a situation that is happening in east and northeast Harris County. Mr. Speaker, we have a group that is talking about communities rallying for our troops. Now, our troops are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have two groups, the 373rd Support Battalion and also the 450th Chemical Battalion. They are Houston Reserves who are serving our country. What is happening this week in North Shore and Channel View and northeast Harris County and Houston are our communities showing support for those young men and women serving our country everywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for freedom and democracy everywhere in the world. My only frustration is that here on the floor of the House today we do not even get an amendment on a major piece of legislation. But we know that we support our troops, whether they are in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. This important legislation takes a number of steps to reduce medical errors. In November of 1999, the Institute of Medicine released its groundbreaking report, To Err is Human, which raises serious concerns about shortcomings in the area of patient safety. According to some estimates, as many as 98,000 people die in any given year from medical errors that occur in hospitals. That's more than die from motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. The costs of preventable adverse events are staggering. The direct and indirect costs of medical errors range from $17 billion to $29 billion. By any standard, that is far too much. The Institute of Medicine recommended a number of options to help reduce medical errors, such as the creation of a Center for Patient Safety within the Agency for Health Quality and Research. They also suggested a new system of reporting, and better use of technological advancements. The legislation we are considering today incorporates many of the suggestions made by IOM, and will go a long way to help health care providers improve patient safety and prevent medical errors. This legislation creates a ``culture of safety'' by encouraging providers to report medical mistakes. By reporting these problems, physicians and other providers are able to learn from their mistakes and prevent them from happening in the future. This legislation also permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide to patient safety organizations and to States technical assistance with reporting systems for health care errors, to establish a process to certify patient safety organizations, and to develop or adopt voluntary national standards promoting the interoperability of information technology systems involved with health care delivery. These provisions will go a long way in helping our hospitals and physicians offices a safer place. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and hope to see it signed by the President this year.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, introduced by my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, and my good friend, Chris John. This legislation would provide grants to communities for the operation of mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito- borne diseases. Last summer, Americans watched in fear as the West Nile virus spread rapidly across our country. Before 1999, there was no record of a West Nile virus case in North America, but in the last few years, West Nile has become a serious public health concern. According to the CDC, from 1999 through 2001, there were 149 cases of West Nile virus in the United States reported, including 18 deaths. That number skyrocketed last year, with West Nile affecting almost 4,000 individuals, and killing 259. In my home state of Texas, more than 190 people were infected, and 11 lost their lives. I have no doubt that those numbers will continue to climb. We must take steps to control mosquito populations now, before the summer months come and it is too late. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the MASH Act. This legislation provides vital assistance to our communities to give them the tools they need to control mosquito populations and protect the public health. It also recognizes the severity of mosquito-borne disease in certain communities and ensures that those hardest-hit areas receive a priority in receiving assistance. I know this will be helpful to my hometown of Houston, which had 77 confirmed cases of West Nile in the past year, and recently discovered as many as 40 mosquito pools that are positive for West Nile virus. Like I said, we must act now, before the weather warms up and the mosquitoes start to swarm. I strongly support passage and enactment of the MASH Act, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to respect the rights of States that have governed in an area for over 30 years. This House will consider H.R. 5 tomorrow. This legislation does nothing more than attempt to impose Congress' will on States without giving them the opportunity to draft their own solutions to this problem. Medical malpractice is a problem. Insurance rates are a problem. Availability is a problem. But our States have dealt with this issue for almost 30 years now, and I know that in Texas the State legislature is considering a piece of legislation now. In fact, in 37 States, States are considering legislation now. State legislatures have always been the laboratories for successful legislation. They are best positioned to determine how to address the medical malpractice situation in these States. These lawsuits are filed in State courts, not in Federal courts. H.R. 5, however, ignores the hard work being done by our States and imposes a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best approach; and that is not the way to govern. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues who consider themselves defenders of States' rights to oppose H.R. 5 tomorrow and let the State legislatures do their job.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my strong support to the joint resolution of both my colleagues, Chairman Hunter and also Ranking Member Skelton. I think not only myself, but all of us have the highest respect for our young men and women, and they deserve our sincerest gratitude, for the Armed Forces in our country do not make foreign policy, they fulfill the tasks that our democracy puts to them with skill and honor. In my hometown of Houston and throughout Texas, many active duty personnel have been shipped overseas and Reserve and National Guard units are also being called up. The Houston-based 75th Army Training and Support Division has been completely mobilized for the first time since World War II. Just yesterday, the 17,000 strong 1st Cavalry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, got the call to ship out overseas. These men and women are not allowed to tell where they are heading or what this mobilization will lead to, but this is a life they volunteered for. The war on terrorism requires sacrifices for many, but the military is always on the front lines defending our national security. After September 11, the work required of our military has greatly expanded, and I believe they are up to the task. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell our Armed Forces that our hearts and minds and prayers are with them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is an issue so important to some of us who represent districts in Texas and Georgia, and it is important nationwide because there has been legislation in the last 4 years that had a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives as cosponsors to repeal the offset for public employees, for teachers, firefighters and police officers. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was a cosponsor of the bill 2 years ago, and now we are gathering signatures again. It is a system that is wrong, and it needs to be changed; but in my 5 years, we have not had a chance to address it on the floor of the House of Representatives. I know my colleagues talk about the 1 day as a loophole. Well, it may be a loophole, but it is also complying with the law. It is interesting, we are going to close a loophole and allow firefighters, police officers and teachers to go to work 1 day in a system that has Social Security and their retirement system and be eligible for Social Security. Yet we are willing to open up millions of loopholes for corporations to be able to walk through. I regret to say Enron is from the area I am from in Houston, and they have not paid Federal taxes in 6 years. We do not mind opening loopholes big enough for corporations to drive trucks through, but for a school teacher who wants to get her husband's Social Security benefits because she has taught for 30 years teaching our children, we are closing up that loophole. They get penalized on their widow's benefits. We are talking about widows' benefits and not somebody that is double dipping, and I know previously that is what the committee wanted to do. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 743, and I hope that Members will look at it to change it. Some public employees are not covered by Social Security, and in Texas it is particularly our police officers, firefighters and teachers. Our school districts can be part of Social Security or not. The individual employee, whether they are a cafeteria worker or custodian or a teacher, they do not have a choice. All they want to do is serve our children, and yet they are getting penalized. My example is the best one I can think of. My wife and I have been married 33 years. She has been a teacher in Texas for 26 years. If I died tomorrow, she would be penalized on all the benefits that I have put into Social Security. I have paid the maximum for I-do-not-know- how-many years. She would be penalized because she is a public schoolteacher in Texas. H.R. 743 has a great many good things in it, but this is so bad we ought to have enough votes on the floor to be able to defeat it and bring it back without this provision in it, or at least bring it back and debate it fully on the floor with an opportunity to amend it. Full spousal benefit ought to be if I paid into Social Security, my wife as a widow when I pass away ought to get the same benefit no matter whether she is a stay-at-home housewife or actually worked as a schoolteacher. We should not punish teachers and firefighters and police officers by stripping away this right unless we address the underlying problem of the government pension offset. Closing a loophole, that is what the current law is. And in Texas I have a good example. I have a teacher in my wife's school district who was 73 years old. Her husband died in her early sixties. She was receiving his Social Security widow's benefit. She could not retire because of the cut she would take in her Social Security benefit from her husband. They were married many years so she was entitled to it. What she did, she went and worked in a school district that had Social Security and teacher retirement for that 1 day at 73 years old. How long do we want people to have to work? It is just outrageous what the law has made people have to do. Teachers across our country are chronically underpaid. We give lots of lip service on the floor. Yesterday we passed a resolution about Lutheran educators. I am talking about public school teachers who teach our children every day. Is it perfect? Of course not. But this is the only thing we can do on the Federal level because teachers' salaries are set by the school districts and by the States. But this is something we can do to say we are not going to slap them in the face. We are going to make sure that if someone is a teacher and has taught all those years, and their husband has been under Social Security and they pass away, and I say husband because most of the teachers are women. They are the ones in their retirement years who have less than we do as men, and yet we are taking that away from them. Again, that is just outrageous. We find it harder and harder to attract teachers. Let us make sure if teachers are married to someone who pays into Social Security, they can get their widow's benefit without being punished for it. This issue is close to the heart for a lot of us in Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk with my colleagues on a very controversial provision within the Social Security Protection Act which the House will be considering on the floor tomorrow. This legislation includes a number of important provisions to defend Social Security against fraud and abuse, and ensure that disabled beneficiaries are protected. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to offer any protections to an equally important population: public employees who suffer at the hands of an unfair provision known as the government pension offset. In States where some public employees are not covered by Social Security, such as Texas, the government pension offset reduces spousal benefits by two-thirds, and, in some cases, eliminates these benefits altogether. This provision unfairly penalizes public servants such as schoolteachers, firefighters, and police officers who educate our children, protect us from harm, and care for us during emergencies. This is a particular burden for widows, especially our public school teachers who had planned their retirement benefits thinking they would receive a full spousal benefit, because their spouses did pay into the Social Security trust fund. The only way they can escape this unfair penalty is by working their last days in a job covered by Social Security and their retirement system. Unfortunately, so many school districts and some law enforcement agencies in Texas do not have both their pension plan plus Social Security. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering tomorrow would prevent teachers from using this benefit, forcing them to work 5 more years in order to receive a full spousal benefit. In other words, they would have to leave their jobs at the school district which may not be part of the Social Security system, because in 1983 Congress allowed public employees not to be included, to then work for a school district that is both under the teacher retirement system in Texas and Social Security for 5 years. We should not punish teachers by stripping away this right unless we address the underlying problem, the unfair government pension offset, the GPO. The widow's benefit is vital to many individuals in my district, especially public school teachers, who have worked their whole lives trying to educate our children. It is not by their choice that they happen to work in a school district that does not pay Social Security; it is school district decisions by the board Members. I have received literally hundreds of phone calls and messages from constituents who are hurt by this provision. They planned their retirement thinking that they would receive a pension benefit or spousal benefit if their husbands or wives die. Let us be clear: Most of the impact of this provision is on women. At the time they chose their profession, teaching may have been the best opportunity for females; but they retire, to find that they are not eligible for their husband's benefit, their widow's benefit, because they receive a public pension that was not covered under Social Security. By that time, it is too late. I could give many examples of people who have worked many years teaching our children, working as a custodian in our school districts, or helping serve food to our children whose husband passed away and they find out, well, sorry, you do not pay Social Security, even though your husband did all those years, and now you do not receive but a very small amount, or none, of Social Security widow's benefits. H.R. 743, that is on the floor tomorrow, will make it harder for teachers and other public servants to get the benefits they deserve, but it does nothing to address the unfair system that created this situation in the first place. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for public servants by opposing this legislation tomorrow, and to work instead to eliminate the government pension offset, the GPO. I am a strong supporter of legislation introduced by my colleagues, the gentlemen from California, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Berman, which would eliminate the government pension offset and the windfall elimination provision, another quirk in Social Security that hurts public employees. That is legislation we should be considering tomorrow, but we are not. I know my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), has been a champion on this issue and is planning on introducing legislation which would provide a remedy for the government offset. We should consider these bills before we consider H.R. 743. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to act on these bills and finally solve the government pension offset problem.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are few decisions more difficult than the one we are making today. If it were simply a debate about human cloning, I doubt that we would have one vote for it. I think the vote would be 435 to zero. I think we are all troubled by the recent media reports by the Raelians about attempting to clone a human being. Human cloning is a horrifying practice that should be banned, and people like the Raelians should be stopped. But this legislation is more than human cloning. There is an exciting field of research known as therapeutic cloning that can potentially cure diseases and conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, organ failure, Alzheimer's, and other life-threatening illnesses. Who of us has not had a constituent or family member touched by one of these illnesses so that we would be willing to do whatever research possible to end their suffering? We have heard amazing testimony from scientific experts who have made a compelling case for therapeutic cloning. They tell me that individuals currently receiving organ transplants may endure toxic immunosuppressive drugs in order to stay alive; but by cloning tissues and organs, nerve cells and other cells, we can provide a genetic duplicate that the body would not reject. If this technology is developed, we could cure any disease that involves the damage or deterioration of tissues and cells. There are very few diseases that do not fall in this category. This is the most promising approach for millions of Americans whose suffering could end if therapeutic cloning is allowed. That is why I support the Greenwood substitute. Many oppose cloning because they believe it is not allowed in their religious beliefs. The Greenwood substitute prohibits human cloning but it allows for our God-given intelligence to make our world a healthier and safer and less painful place. As Christians, I hope that is our mission and our prayer, to eliminate human suffering. That is why I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Greenwood substitute and give hope to these individuals.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not normally give 1 minutes any more, but after hearing my colleague from the Republican side talk about it, I shall. I was home most of last week and talked with my constituents about the President's proposed tax cut. One of the things that I think bothers a lot of folks is if we eliminate the so-called double taxation, we have double taxation in lots of areas in our country, but if we eliminate double taxation, the double taxation is a good issue, but it is just patently wrong for a person in my district who makes $60,000 a year working at a chemical plant or refinery, because they work 40 hours a week and maybe overtime to pay their tax rates. For somebody to sit home and clip coupons because maybe they inherited that and they make $60,000 a year, to say I am sorry, you do not have to pay taxes on that is wrong. Income is income. Now, I agree that I would like to increase the dividend deduction so we can help smaller investors, but, again, abolishing the dividend tax, which is half the President's plan, is just patently wrong for the American people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Ms. Woolsey), my former colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for yielding me this time. I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 4, the so-called Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. How our names sometimes get in the way! H.R. 4 is not the solution to what we need to do. There has been success in lowering welfare rolls since 1996, but it was the good economy that did this, not welfare reform; and I would love to see numbers for welfare recipients for 2002 instead of just going back to when our economy took the dip in 2001. We all know that education is the silver bullet and it is the key that helps individuals find higher-paying jobs which lift them out of poverty and achieve the American dream, but this bill makes the same mistakes as its predecessor by limiting recipients' access to education and training. Without these services, welfare beneficiaries are trapped in those low-paying jobs. The best solution to welfare is a job that pays a decent wage. This legislation will also have disastrous effects on our State budgets because it imposes strict new requirements but provides absolutely no funding. For example, it increases the work requirements to 70 percent, which philosophically I do not mind; but currently in my home State of Texas it is struggling to maintain its participation at 26 percent. It will cost the State of Texas $688 million when we already have a $12 billion shortfall.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution which recognizes December 21 1960, the date when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The Pilgrims were Dutch and English citizens who sought to escape the religious persecution and economic problems of their time by immigrating to the New World. Their voyage was one of discovery and an enduring quest for freedom that began by boarding the Mayflower. After a difficult journey across the Atlantic, the pilgrims arrived prepared to create a new society modeled on freedom. The many months of hardship and deprivation was rewarded with their arrival at the New World. When land was sighted on November 9, 1620, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact, which ensured the equality of every person. This pact laid the foundation and moral framework for the future United States of America. When the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, they faced harsh conditions. It was too cold to plant crops and many died due to exposure, disease and starvation. It was not until the spring when the Pilgrims and Native Americans came together as a community teaching each other survival skills and agriculture that life gradually improved. During the War of Independence, residents of Plymouth, Massachusetts began celebrating the historic landing at Plymouth Rock. It began as a feast that the descendents of the original pilgrims celebrated and eventually grew into a town festival. The festival continued through the years until President Abraham Lincoln started celebrating it in the White House during the Civil War. In 1941, Congress passed a Joint resolution that ``Thanksgiving'' should fall on the fourth Thursday in November but not until now has Congress had the opportunity to commend the actual date the Pilgrims landed. Please join me in commemorating the first of many steps that crafted this great nation. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sales Tax Equitability Act, important legislation which would eliminate the discrimination faced by individuals who live in States that have no income tax. Under current law, individuals can deduct their State income tax from their Federal income tax. Unfortunately, in many States like Texas, which has no State income tax, residents are not eligible for this deduction. Even though they pay State sales taxes that are equitable to income taxes in other States, these individuals are penalized because they don't pay a State income tax. This situation is patently unfair. The legislation I am introducing today would allow residents of States with no income tax to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax. This legislation would provide fairness for all Americans by ensuring that, in States where there is no income tax, State and local sales taxes are treated the same as income taxes. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, from the pioneering Mercury missions, to the Apollo voyages to the moon, to the construction of the revolutionary International Space Station, America's astronauts have boldly gone where no man has gone before. Our scientific understanding, quality of life, and ability to imagine a better future have been greatly increased by the brave men and women who volunteer and are selected for these difficult missions. In my hometown of Houston, Space City, Texas, NASA's astronauts and employees are part of the family. They are our neighbors and friends, they help us educate and motivate our schoolchildren, they attend our churches with us, and they serve as role models in our community. Since 1997, I have had the privilege of having NASA astronauts visit middle schools in my congressional district. These visits are meant to encourage students to take math and science classes and to consider our space program as a career opportunity. I have been fortunate to get to know Dr. Ellen Ochoa, the first Hispanic woman astronaut, Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, the most traveled astronaut in NASA history and Dr. Danny Olivas, one of the newest astronauts. I believe that all students need to have access to roll models like Dr. Ochoa, Dr. Chang-Diaz, and Dr. Olivas. Individuals who proudly brave the dangerous conditions of spaceflight in pursuit of technology and scientific research to improve life on earth deserve our highest respect. Along with our other heroes of space exploration Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon will not be forgotten for making the ultimate sacrifice. NASA and Congress will have to do the hard work and ask the hard questions to determine what went wrong and why from both on the shuttle itself, and within NASA's management and operations. Then we must take the required action and devote the required resources to improving the safety of our astronauts. Improving safety may or may not require more money, but the NASA budget is extremely small within the federal budget. If safety funding needs to be bumped up, so be it, but it should not come at the expense of the other valuable activities at NASA. I wish to express my deep respect for those brave men and women we lost this Saturday and to extend my heartfelt sympathy to their family, friends, and fellow astronauts. They have touched many in Houston, Texas, our Nation, and the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) control the balance of the time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my neighbor. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank my California colleague for those kind words for Texans. Texans, as you noticed yesterday, did take the loss of the Columbia to our heart. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is vitally important to ensure that states can provide quality health care to uninsured children. On October 1st of last year, states with unspent federal funding allocation were forced to return those amounts back to the U.S. Treasury. These funds are from the early years of the CHIP program, and were unspent because it took many states several years to develop and implement their CHIP programs. Unfortunately, we are cutting these funds at a time when they will be needed most. Under the Balanced Budget Act, CHIP funding was reduced by $1 billion, or 26 percent in fiscal year 2002, and is slated to remain at this reduced level until fiscal year 2004. States that had been able to draw on unspent funds in order to avert cutbacks will now have to start eliminating services. As a result of this problem, the Office of Management and Budget estimates that 900,000 children will lose their CHIP coverage. This is a particular problem in my home state of Texas. Even though Texas has enrolled and provides coverage to over 500,000 children, the state was forced to return $285 million at the end of fiscal year 2002. This is especially problematic, as the state is facing a budget shortfall of approximately $5 billion. The legislation I am introducing would restore $1.2 billion in unspent funds under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This is a necessary move to ensure that our children have access to the health care they need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a simple piece of legislation making 3 new changes to the way that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) reviews rail construction projects, particularly when in residential areas. I am introducing this legislation following the frustration I have experienced dealing with the STB on a matter of great importance to thousands of my constituents' quality of life--the potential San Jacinto rail line in Southeast Harris County, Texas. The level of concern in the community, on many issues, and the outpouring of public opposition produced during the STB's formal process has been tremendous. Residents are concerned with increasing traffic delays and accidents in an area already experiencing too many problems with train traffic. Citizens are concerned about the safety of their children going to school, the potential for dangerous spills and accidents, localized noise and air pollution, and several other concerns. Amazingly, in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the STB concluded that the project will have a negligible impact on the surrounding community. I have spoken with hundreds of people about this project, and I can say that the STB is flat our wrong. I do not believe that they ignore the public interest at the STB on purpose, but I believe that the agency and its decision-making process are biased against the concerns of residents who are facing rail construction in their neighborhoods. I am introducing this legislation to change the decision-making process so that it is more balanced in three ways. First, if there is a high level of public opposition, the legislation requires that the concerns of residents and local officials be taken into greater consideration than in the past, especially when the rail construction proposal is in a residential area. Secondly, the legislation requires that, before a final determination, the STB determine whether a proposal would have a disproportionate impact on either minority areas or economically disadvantaged areas. If so, the STB would be required to report to the public what alternatives to the disproportionate impact proposal were considered and why they were not chosen. Finally, the legislation would require the STB to investigate the providing of false, potentially material information about the project. During the investigation, the entire decision process is put on hold, and if the STB found that the false information was intentionally provided the application is automatically denied. I am not introducing a rifle shot bill directed at a project in my area, but instead this legislation is broad based and applicable across the country. I have learned from my experience that the STB's balance needs to be shifted back towards the affected community.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Life Insurance Employee Notification Act of the LIEN Act for short. As a strong supporter of the American worker, I am here on the floor reintroducing legislation to stop American companies from profiting in the deaths of their employees. Last year, over 50 of my colleagues joined me as cosponsors on this important consumer protection legislation. Excellent investigative reporting by the Houston Chronicle brought this unsavory insurance practice to my attention. Businesses operating in Texas are purchasing secret life insurance policies on their employees without their knowledge or consent. These policies are known as Corporate-owned Life Insurance or COLI. Unfortunately, they also have another name ``dead peasant policies.'' They are called dead peasant policies because these Corporate-owned Life Insurance policies are usually purchased for the rank-and-file employees and not the CEO, CFO, or the Board of Directors. Executive Insurance or ``Key Man Insurance'' is the norm in corporate America and I have no problem with that because it is disclosed to investors and the individual. Dead peasant policies, on the other hand, are not disclosed to the low-level employee because he or she is not eligible to collect the death benefit. This failure to notify the ownership of the death benefit is the crux of the problem. American companies are purchasing secret life insurance on the chance that one of their employees dies and they can collect the six figure death benefit. These companies have created a death derivative. In a large company with thousands of employees, economic modeling can be done to predict how many policies will be collected on in a given year. This blood money can be used for whatever the company wants, but most importantly it is rarely used to compensate the families of the dead employee. While I find the use of life insurance in this manner offensive, I understand it is not illegal and is in fact condoned in many states; Texas is not one of them. The LIEN Act is a sunshine bill that forces companies to disclose to the employee that a dead peasant policy has been purchased in their name. In addition, it requires the company to provide the name of the insurer, the benefit amount, and under whose name the policy is in. I do not want to ban this practice, but simply provide workers with more information about what the employer is doing on their behalf. As we saw with Enron, corporations often do not provide pertinent financial information to their employees. I am frankly disgusted with this whole practice and am amazed that this all began as a simple tax dodge worth billions of dollars. In the mid 1990s, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the classification of these policies as a legitimate business expense for the purpose of reducing their federal tax obligation. I urge my colleagues to again cosponsor this important legislation protecting all hard working Americans from dead peasant insurance.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 23, legislation to extend Temporary Unemployment Benefits. Millions of American workers are in trouble today, including many of my constituents, and it is high time we did something about it. Back in March 2002, Congress created the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Benefits Compensation (TEUC) program to provide 13 weeks of federally funded unemployment insurance to qualified workers who had exhausted their state unemployment benefits, and an additional 13 weeks to some in ``high unemployment'' states. The TEUC program was a great idea, but we underestimated the economic trouble that we were in. At that time, the unemployment rate in my home state of Texas was 5.6% and that quickly rose to 6.9% by June of 2002. By November 2002, the latest month for which the Texas Workforce Commission has data, the official unemployment rate still stood at 6.0%, meaning that over 640,000 Texas workers are out of work. So, we can see that the problem is not over. The need for an unemployment compensation extension is still very urgent. However, the TEUC program expired, three days after Christmas, on December 28, 2002. Congress was fully aware of the unemployment problem when we were here in November and December, but the House leadership would not agree to the Senate compromise legislation, which was partly the work of the Republican Whip in the Senate. So, it is with great relief that I have the opportunity to vote in favor of the Senate compromise today. While I am relieved that we are delivering relief to the people that need it most--those who are out of work and are trying their best to find it--I do not believe that we are doing enough. The legislation before us today only restores TEUC benefits for those who lost their eligibility on or after December 28, 2002. I am an original cosponsor of the Rangel-Cardin alternative, H.R. 17, which would restore these unemployed workers' benefits while they continue to look for work. H.R. 17 should be under consideration today by the House of Representatives, but the Republican leadership has denied us the opportunity to even let it come to vote. Now I agree that partisan conflicts over how much unemployment assistance to provide during one of the longest economic slowdowns in recent history should not prevent us from doing something, today. So I strongly urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support this legislation and send it to the president so that some unemployed workers can get something soon. After that, I also urge all of my colleagues to look at what we have done today and compare that to H.R. 17. If you do that, I think you will realize how much more needs to be done. Let us pass S. 23 today, and pass more relief as soon as possible.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a simple piece of legislation that will provide all Americans with another important national symbol which they can lean on during times of national stress. The legislation will designate ``God Bless America'' as our National Hymn. The first words of this song, ``God Bless America, land that I love,'' say it all. They are simple, direct, and they truly reflect the spirit of our country during this latest challenge. Although nothing can surpass the importance or meaning of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' as our preeminent national anthem, ``God Bless America'' is almost always the second song our citizens fall to in times of great national tragedy. America's unofficial national anthem was composed by Irving Berlin, an immigrant who left Siberia for America when he was only five years old. While originally written for a musical in 1918, Berlin realized that this was more than a light-hearted musical number. So he set it aside for a more appropriate time. That time came shortly before the Second World War. Berlin released ``God Bless America'' in November of 1938. As the nation prepared to enter World War II, it was evident that the whole country--from the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans white with foam--would need to stay strong, to protect our home sweet home. ``God Bless America'' unified all Americans with its simple sentiment, and it unifies us again today. This song is the heart and soul of our country, and we should honor it by designating it as our National Hymn. Thank you Mr. Speaker.