Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of not only the rule but also the Air Transport System Stabilization Act of 2001. Last week, this country suffered a terrible human loss when terrorists decided to use our airline industry as a weapon of mass destruction. The human magnitude of this attack has now started to crystallize, but the economic consequences of many of our industries, like the airlines, is only now becoming known. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the terrorists have brought financial ruin on our national airline system. Our national carriers have suffered a 50 to 80 percent drop in passenger miles flown, and that number may actually get worse in the short term. Congress must step in immediately and provide a financial floor for the industry. They need help, and they need it now. I understand there are many in this Chamber who want to attach a broad list of legislative mandates and conditions on the bill. I would like to do some of these. But this assistance is only the first step. If we delay providing financial assistance one more week while we haggle over these proposals, this industry would not need the $15 billion because they will be out of business. That is because airlines are going to start declaring bankruptcy and will not need the money. Delaying this financial assistance package means more workers will lose their jobs and Wall Street will continue to punish their stocks. Let me make something very clear, our number one priority should be the jobs of the thousands of airline employees being furloughed or laid-off. But, we cannot begin to help them until we arrest the airlines sinking financial position. This legislation is not a bailout, it is a helping hand that I hope all the airlines fully appreciate. Mr. Speaker, I do also want to interject that I would like to see all the airline CEO's show some solidarity with their workers by agreeing to take a cut in pay. I understand that the legislation caps their pay, but I do not think this is sufficient in the face of the thousands of pink slips being handed out. Tough times need to be shared by all. My colleagues, we have time left in this session to bring a second more comprehensive airline reform package to the floor. I know the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will work with all Members to address their concerns, but please lets get this package out the door today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 64. Today, as Members of Congress, we use words as our weapons. Tomorrow these words must be followed through. The hard work begins. As Americans we pride ourselves in our diversity. We come in all shapes and sizes and colors. We come with many religious beliefs: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim. But in our differences we are family. We are different and proud; but attack us, kill us, harm us, we are Americans first and we respond as family. The gloves are now coming off with respect to all of the terrorists and their organizations and the governments who choose to harbor them. With the passage of this resolution, the President of the United States will have the authority to apply all the military force he deems necessary to terminate terrorist threats against this country. America has stood strong in the face of adversity and has never bowed down to enemies and will not start now. Justice will come in many forms for the people involved in this attack. We have yet to see even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the retribution we will exact from the leaders of this bombing. Mr. Speaker, I have never been prouder to be an American. God bless America.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I know the concern for my colleagues about the lack of the language and the concern that we have not had the time to look at this, but also know the devil is what is going to happen between now and next Thursday when we come back in. It is not just Hawaii. It is not just Chicago. It is every major city in the country. The airlines cannot do this, cannot sustain this. That is what concerns me. If we are willing to stand here and say I am going to object because it was not brought up to me because of my committee, then I would hope that between now and next Thursday when we see the layoffs and we see what happens, because no business can continue to pay people when you are only running 25 to 30 percent of your load, I do not care what kind of business you are in. So that is what worries me. This Congress has to be flexible enough in these emergency times to be able to make sure that we have the safety net for our infrastructure, and our airlines are an important part of the infrastructure. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation has experienced much human tragedy. Although my hometown of Houston, Texas was spared the devastation that occurred in New York City and in Washington, D.C., we did suffer from a tremendous loss. Today, I rise to pay tribute to Miguel Ramirez. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, Aldine High School lost Miguel Ramirez, one of its most promising ninth grade students. Miguel had been preparing for an afternoon football practice session before he collapsed. Miguel was new to Aldine High School, but he quickly embraced the school and its traditions. He was an honor student and was enthusiastic about football. Despite the fact that Miguel Ramirez was only fourteen years old, he made a lasting impression on his family, his friends and his teachers. Recently, the Houston Chronicle reported on the impact Miguel had had on his football teammates. I would like to share the following excerpt: ``We had a meeting this morning, and the attitude of the team is that they wanted to go out and win a game for Miguel,'' said freshman coach Mark Muilenburg. ``There really wasn't any hesitation about them wanting to play and we talked about that as a team. Miguel was a guy that was always at practice and a guy that always wanted to play. He just started playing this year, and he was so proud of his jersey and so proud of the fact that he was on a team.'' Mr. Speaker, the loss of any life is sad, but the loss of a young life is truly tragic. Even in death, Miguel will continue to lead through the contributions he has left behind, the relationships he has forged, and the example he has set. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in expressing our heartfelt condolences to the Miguel Ramirez family, especially to his parents David and Maria, and to his many friends and classmates at Aldine High School.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good effort. Again, we are seeing the people in this country take the lead on this. In fact, I just talked to my district offices, and they are amazed in Houston how many people are taking their own initiative, not just here in Washington, but all across the country. I think Congress needs to encourage that, because, again, we are all in this together, Democrats and Republicans, urban and rural, North and South. The thing that brings us together is we are Americans.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me time. I rise today, like a lot of my colleagues, with a heavy heart for anyone who has suffered from yesterday's tragic and cowardly attack. Yesterday was one of America's darkest hours. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of the victims and those who were injured or killed yesterday and with all Americans. America is coming together and focusing on bringing the full weight of our Nation into recovery effort. We will find our missing, bury our dead, heal our wounded and rebuild. The light of freedom has not been extinguished. As the book of Isaiah says, ``Your sun will never set again, and your moon will wane no more; the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your days of sorrow will end.'' Mr. Speaker, that brings me to the other thoughts I have been having since this tragedy unfolded. From this day forward, the word needs to go out from this country that no matter what dark place the enemies of America wish to hide in, our law enforcement and military will find them. I strongly support President Bush and his position that countries providing safe havens to known terrorists be treated no differently than the terrorists themselves. We have the ability to deliver destruction of biblical proportions. Those who carry out these horrible acts need to be punished, either through our court system or through the reach of our military. To the people of America, I ask you to continue to keep the victims of this attack in your prayers and pray for the safety of those engaged in our rescue efforts. This cowardly attack was condemned throughout the world but was cheered in the streets of Iraq, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. It is truly a sick society that teaches its children such hate. For them to cheer at this terrible loss of innocent life is something I will make a point of remembering. The new war against terrorism began yesterday, but the healing begins today. Our enemies hoped yesterday to weaken America, to hurt it, but they failed. America will come out of this horrible event stronger, more united, and more powerful than ever.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 333. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say that I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the hard work that he has done; but I also disagree with the language that was agreed to, and I can stand here on this floor and still respect him but disagree with him. The President and the gentleman from Georgia stood last night on the podium and proclaimed they reached a compromise. But it is really not a compromise. It is not a compromise because not everybody was involved. Only one Member was involved in it. The Norwood amendment holds HMOs to different standards than doctors and hospitals. That was the base reason for the bill. We are going to hear lots of Members come up tonight and talk about how this is a great bill, but they were for the Fletcher bill. They were not for a real patients' bill of rights, anyway. So we are going to hear that tonight. Even though HMOs act like doctors if they deny or delay care, they are not held accountable like doctors under this amendment. They are the only health care providers that are shielded. That is what is wrong. What is more troubling about this proposal is that it destroys the important patient protections that we have had in Texas for 4 years. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) may quote Texas law, but the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia negotiated with the President goes against Texas law. It does not have anything to do with holding an employer who runs the business. That is Texas law. We wanted to correct that in this bill. But it does change the liability. And it does change the presumption. There is nothing in Texas law that gives the HMO or the insurance company the presumption that they are right. That is wrong. That is why our appeals are so successful in Texas. That is why 52 percent of the 1,400 appeals were in favor of the patient. The HMOs that you are defending were wrong more than half the time. That is what is wrong with this law. That is why it is so bad. It is going to hurt what we have successfully done in Texas where the insurance policies are under State law. But we need to do a real patients' bill of rights for everyone in the country. Sixty percent of my constituents do not come under Texas law; they come under ERISA. That is why we need to make sure we pass a strong patients' bill of rights, not a patients' bill of wrongs, not an HMO bill of rights. That is what this is. You heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) talk about just the changing of an ``a'' to a ``the'' will make sure our patients are shafted by this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we finally have a debate today on the Patients' Bill of Rights but it is not a good deal. In the dark of night we have an agreement that is masquerading as a Patients' Bill of Rights, but it is a patients' bill of wrongs. For example, one proposal gives rebuttable presumption to HMOs, placing the burden on the patients to get the care they need. This provision stacks the decks against patients and makes it nearly impossible to prove that the HMO, when they are denied care, was negligent. Additionally, the compromise would change State law. Even in my home State of Texas and we have had a law for 4 years, federal law will change our Texas law. Texas has a meaningful patients' bill of rights on the books since 1997, and it has resulted in strong protections for both patients, doctors, and insurers. But under the Bush-Norwood plan, the Texas patients will have their case heard under federal law but in State court. So we are changing the rules in the State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) worked long and hard on this issue, but every compromise in this proposal is in favor of the HMO and not the patient. I came here to vote for a strong patients' bill of rights, not an HMO's bill of rights.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I looked forward to this day when we could have a Patients' Bill of Rights on the floor, but after seeing what happened, I am so disappointed and so frustrated, and I think that is what is going to happen with the American people. Instead of a Patients' Bill of Rights, we have a patients' bill of wrongs. We have a Patients' Bill of Rights that is masquerading, but it is really the patients' bill of wrongs. What it does is it transfers the decision-making from the State courts, where in Texas we have it now, to under Federal rules in State courts; and that is wrong, and nowhere in our jurisprudence history do we have that. So it is going to make it harder. It gives a presumption for the HMO so they are right and you have to prove them wrong. We are actually going to increase litigation. My colleagues do not want more litigation. When you give that right to the insurance companies, you are going to make people hire an attorney just to go through the appeals process, and that is wrong. In Texas, we had a Patients' Bill of Rights for 4 years, very few lawsuits, 1,400 appeals, 52 percent in favor of the patient. So more than half the time, the HMO was wrong; and they are wrong today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member and good friend for allowing me to close on our side. I rise in support of H.R. 4 and want to commend the leaders on both sides, particularly in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that we worked on, what I consider a reasonable energy package. This legislation is long overdue and sorely needed because America has been wracked by unstable energy policies resulting from both internal and external pressures. The legislation before us today will help stabilize these prices through a combination of exploration and conservation. I am not standing here to pretend that we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil, but we need to do better. However, by more utilization of our domestic energy sources, we can better absorb unexpected price shocks. In addition, the positive step this bill takes toward conservation will further stretch our energy supply. The bipartisan agreement in our committee between the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has resulted in the first meaningful increase in the CAFE standard in over 2 decades. I understand this compromise may not go far enough for some folks, but it is an increase. I am concerned about American jobs. We need to make sure we have production, and exploration. I will have a discussion on this in later amendments. I am glad to support the bill and look forward to working with my colleagues.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague, the Chair of our Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me time. Again we hear the rhetoric of stop the gouging and the request for the cost of service-based rates. You know, I think maybe if it is good enough for natural gas or power, maybe it ought to be good enough for the computers I buy from Silicon Valley. I hope we do not have cost-of- service-based rates on attorneys. Anyway, that is my concern. If we use cost-of-service-based on anything, that is price caps; and that works in a regulated environment. But what California did, they wanted to take advantage of deregulation and have a State deregulation, that was flawed to begin with. That is why in the State they refused to fix it until it literally drained the power from all their neighboring States during the first part of this year. Retail price caps have been in effect in California, and it has created artificially stimulated demand. It has increased the demand for natural gas. Not surprising, the removal of these retail price caps caused the consumers in California to have a 12 percent decrease because now that it has increased the cost, their demand is going down. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to help consumers in the West, we cannot afford to implement strategies that have failed in the past. This is why price caps are wrong. Either you have a regulated environment or you have a deregulated environment. You cannot have a mixture, which California wanted. You cannot have partial free enterprise. So that is why this amendment is wrong, and hopefully the House will reject it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our committee for yield me time. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to follow my colleague from Washington, because I have also been to ANWR, and maybe we went to 2 different places, because when I was there in the first week of August, it was snowing; it was a blizzard. Maybe he was further south, where we are not talking about drilling, but I have been there, and I know we can extract oil from it and we can have an infrastructure that will not impact the environmental quality of ANWR. Our technology has changed since the North Slope was first developed decades ago. We have a much more efficient and robust and less intrusive effort in anywhere, whether it is off the coast of Texas, or in ANWR. Mr. Chairman, we have to drill somewhere, and, if not in ANWR, where do my colleagues suggest to drill? I rise in strong opposition to the Johnson-Markey amendment, and I hope this body is debating this issue as a national policy, because we have to drill somewhere. We cannot keep depending on foreign sources to be able to depend on for our country. Where are we supposed to drill, only in foreign countries? Well, then, we are either going to let people who are our enemies control it, or we are going to take advantage of Third World countries by drilling in those countries and just using it from them. We must support continued effort on foreign dependence on oil, and that is what we need to stop. I think this rationale is crazy. Our country cannot drill its way to energy self-sufficiency, but we can do better than we are doing now. For those who say conservation is the key, sure, we can do better on conservation, but I hear people want to increase the efficiency of air conditioners, and yet in Houston, Texas, I have people who cannot even afford the air conditioners they have today. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a bad amendment, and I hope this House will defeat it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the Cox amendment to lift the fuel oxygen standard for the State of California, and I believe it is bad energy policy plus environmental policy. It moves our country precisely in the opposite direction from the energy legislation we are considering today. The amendment would lift the fuel oxygen standard, but only in the State of California. From the last amendment, we found out that California did not want to be treated differently on their pipelines, but they want to be treated differently on the oxygenate standard. The proponents of the bill argue that California deserves special treatment because of the underlying quality of California fuel; however, this approach is misguided. I will just talk about the supply problem. This amendment would seriously disrupt the price and supply situation. As oxygenates leave the market, we can expect prices to increase. In fact, we have a memo that Senator Wyden recently brought to our attention from a refiner on the West Coast when he learned that the amendment would increase prices. The memo says, ``West Coast surplus refining capacity results in very poor refinery margins and very poor financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies or increase the demand for gasoline. One example of the event would be the elimination of the mandates for oxygenate in addition to gasoline,'' and I am quoting from that memo. ``Given the choice, oxygenate usage would go down and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly.'' Mr. Chairman, that memo is from a refiner who would increase prices as they reduce the oxygenate requirement. That is why I am concerned. The California gas prices are already the highest in the Nation, and by reducing the amount of oxygenates in there, we would see an increase in their price. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am going to close, but there is nothing that makes my car or truck drive that I want to drink, whether it is MTBE, whether it is benzene, or whether it is anything else. The problem that we have had for many years is that there have been problems in California and other places of leaky storage tanks. If MTBE is the problem, it is because we can taste and smell it, what else is in our water supply that we cannot taste or smell that is also leaking out of those storage tanks? That is the concern. We have had success for 6\1/2\ years on reformulated gasoline, whether it is MTBE or ethanol. That is why I am surprised that California thinks that they can produce enough without that. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. I am concerned about the comments of my colleague from California that reformulated gas has not worked in cleaning up our air. I think there is no doubt at all, whether we are in Houston or Los Angeles, that our air quality has gotten better by the oxygen standard. This is the first time I have heard today, and no one seems to argue, that the Federal RFG program has been anything but a success. In fact, the deputy director of the EPA testified to this point and said that the emissions reductions which can be attributed to the RFG program are equivalent to taking 16 million cars off the road, and 75 million people are breathing cleaner air because of RFG. ``Since the RFG program began 6.5 years ago, we estimate that it has resulted in annual reductions of VOC and NOx combined of at least 105,000 tons, and at least 24,000 tons of toxic air pollutants.'' My colleague from California talked about it has not worked, but it has worked. I know that it is working in Houston and L.A. The proponents of the amendment claim that they can make gasoline as clean without using oxygenates, but this is contrary to what we know about fuel. The presence of oxygenates in fuel dilutes the most toxic components in gasoline, and thus reduces air emissions. Do my colleagues know what RFG replaces? Benzene. It replaces benzene. Without oxygenates, there is no dilution of these toxics, and it is as simple as that. None of the proponents of this amendment can assure us that it will maintain the actual levels of protection against air toxins currently present in the Federal RFG. The EPA is frank about the consequences, noting that some people exposed to air toxins may increase their chances of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects depending on which air toxins an individual is exposed to, and these health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive, reduced fertility, developmental and respiratory problems. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that my colleague from southern California would say that there has not been any increase in RFG benefits in the last 6.5 years because again that was passed in 1990 in the Clean Air Act. I was not here, but we have responded to the Federal law both with ethanol and with MTBE. If we have problems with MTBE or ethanol, we need to correct it because we have had a great deal of success from reformulated gasoline. That is why I am shocked to hear my colleague who wanted the committee to rise to say there have not been any benefits from it. We have a great deal of testimony, I am sure in many committees, showing the benefits of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have a list from the last 10 years of complaints and protests of pipeline expansions in California, and each time the California Public Utility Commission did not allow for that pipeline expansion. That is the 10-year history in California. That is not talking about Gray Davis. It is talking about a history in California of not providing for the growth in California, the increase in demand and they have not provided the pipeline capacity for that increase in demand. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says if they cannot receive justice in California for pipeline capacity expansion, they need to be able to come to FERC. This was not my idea. For 6 months I have listened to California complain about Texas and complain about FERC. This would give FERC the authority not only to set price caps, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has an amendment on, but also to be able to decide, to make sure that California has the capacity so their consumers will pay a reasonable price for natural gas and not an inflated price based upon the lack of capacity.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, California is an exception, because we have lots of intrastate pipelines running through the State of Texas, running through lots of States in the Union, but California has taken the Hinshaw exemption from 1954 and carried it much further that any other State.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. It is not the governor, it is the problem with California's distribution system. That is why there needs to be more pipelines, newer pipelines. In fact, we have a letter dated July 17 from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the California Public Utilities Commission saying your problem is intrastate pipelines. So what I am saying is California for months has come and said FERC needs to do this and this and this. Well, they have not asked for FERCs assistance, but this amendment would allow FERC to also allow for pipeline explanation in California.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will respond to both gentleman from California. The reason this is not a problem in other States is that no other State has come to the FERC or the Federal Government to ask for assistance like California has. But in looking at the problem in California, it seemed the disparity in the pipelines, and these are not to scale, the gentleman was right, I was a business major, not an engineer, but it will show the disparity between what pipelines coming to the California border and what leaves the California border to serve intrastate. There is a great disparity. Providing more pipelines would go a long way to solving the problem in California. That is all this amendment would do. People would then come to FERC instead of going to California PUC.