Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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 to enter into a brief dialogue with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. The gentleman from California has right to close?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining between the two sides?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before yielding to my colleague from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to respond that the gentleman is correct, this amendment does single out California. California has asked for Federal assistance now for months and months. What we are saying is that even with the pipelines they are planning, their demand outstrips the capacity of the pipelines that they are planning. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to continue the process that I think this bill begins, and that is rescuing the State of California by removing an important hindrance in delivering more natural gas into their State. In the wake of the California energy debacle, I heard from some of my colleagues and from the esteemed Governor of California that the entire energy shortage in California was the result of Texas energy pirates. My hometown of Houston was sometimes accused of conspiring to drive up natural gas prices by restricting that supply to the West Coast. Imagine my surprise when I learned that there is a Federal law and policy within the State of California that worked hand-in-hand to limit California natural gas pipeline capacity intrastate. It now seems that the real villains may come closer to Sacramento than we originally thought, and maybe even they wear cowboy hats. The Federal law I refer to is the so-called Hinshaw exemption, contained in Section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act. What the Hinshaw exemption says is what is important to California consumers. It was passed in 1954, and it exempts natural gas transmission pipelines from the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, if it receives natural gas at the State boundary or within the State that a natural gas is consumed. What this amendment would do would be to provide FERC oversight over the California pipelines and increase their intrastate pipeline. Mr. Chairman, I have an example here for my colleagues. The interstate gas pipelines actually can flow at 7.4 million cubic feet per day, whereas the pipelines intrastate only can go about 6.67 million cubic feet per day. That is the problem we have in California. There is more gas going to the State than can go out into the State. Now, California can build all the plants they want that will burn natural gas, but if they do not increase the capacity of their pipeline system, it will not help one bit. That is why this is important, and it will provide Federal oversight of those natural gas pipelines in California and give FERC the responsibility they have mentioned before. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John). (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have lots of speakers who did not speak and we did not have enough time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer capping amendment. I will reiterate all of the compliments previously stated, having served with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The International Space Station is something that is working; but regarding the capping of it, Mr. Chairman, we do not have enough money to do everything we want to. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) talked about that. We need to continue what we should be doing in the space program, and the International Space Station is a great example of international cooperation. It had some rough sledding, but it is on schedule now. We have had crews up there since October 2000. They have made so much long-term progress in research in biotechnology, radiation, health, and such classroom-friendly lessons as Earth and near-object observation. Mr. Chairman, that is why this amendment should be defeated, because there are so many other things that we can talk about. The ISS has been a model of multinational coordination between Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and the U.S. If Congress eliminates or even caps funding for the station by passing one of these amendments, it would be a betrayal of our international partners. Since October 2000, two crews have occupied the station and brought many of the early scientific experiments on-line. These experiments include research into long-germ space flight on humans, biotechnology, radiation, health, and such classroom- friendly lessons as earth and near object observation. The space station is on track and operating, with several missions already complete. This NASA budget maintains that momentum and builds on the successes of this program. Critics have charged that funding the space station will push out any smaller space exploration endeavors like the Mars Pathfinder Mission or the Hubbel Space Telescope, which have had enormous success. This simply is not true. NASA, with the development of the space station, will have a platform from which future space exploration and research can be launched. Members of the shuttle crews, along with station inhabitants, have been able to overcome all of the problems that they have encountered, showcasing their ingenuity, creativity and skill. The ground support personnel have also played crucial roles in overcoming these obstacles. We are standing on the brink of the twenty-first century. Capping funding for the international space station would be irresponsible. It would cost us billions of dollars, along with countless hours of hard work and effort by NASA scientists, researchers, astronauts, and engineers. We would be best cripple and at worst lose our foothold to future space exploration and a valuable platform for scientific research. Again, I am opposed to the amendment and support the funding for the international space station in this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which would allow states and localities to provide primary and preventive health care services to undocumented residents. According to some estimates, there are as many as nine million undocumented residents currently living in the United States. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) prohibits public hospitals from providing free or discounted preventive service to undocumented immigrants--even if they pay for such services with State or local funds. PRWORA does, however, allow public hospitals to provide emergency room services. This system has created a crisis in our nation's emergency rooms. Because undocumented residents cannot afford to see the doctor for routine physicals and preventive medicine, they arrive in the emergency room with costlier, often preventable, health problems. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that 29 percent of this population uses hospital and other emergency services in a given year, compared to the 11 percent use by the general U.S. population. The costs of this broken system are especially burdensome for our nation's public hospitals. Harris County Hospital District, in my hometown of Houston, Texas, estimates that emergency room care for undocumented residents cost taxpayers, insurance companies, and patients $225 million over the last three years. Hospitals in New York State provide a total uncompensated care for undocumented residents of $300 million to $380 million each year--almost one third of uncompensated care for the state. Mr. Speaker, people should not enter any nation illegally, But I cannot understand a health care system that forces patients to let their health problems escalate into full fledged emergencies before it will provide them care. Wouldn't it make more economic sense to cover preventive services rather than let illnesses develop into painful and expensive complications? Most importantly, should the federal government be telling states and localities how they can and can't spend their own health care dollars? That is why I am introducing legislation which would allow--not require--state and local programs to provide preventive and primary health care to undocumented aliens. This legislation would not provide a new benefit for undocumented residents. However, it would make sure that our health care dollars are spent more wisely by preventing emergencies--not treating them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown-Morella-Green-Andrews amendment to increase funding to fight the international threat of tuberculosis. Most Americans believe that the battle against tuberculosis is over. Treatment and prevention measures have resulted in a decline in tuberculosis cases in the United States. In fact, U.S. TB cases declined seven percent in 2000, reaching an all-time low. Despite our success in the U.S., tuberculosis continues to be one of the most devastating infections killers in the world, accounting for more than 2 million deaths each year. The statistics are startling: More than one-third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis; It is the leading killer of women, surpassing any cause of maternal mortality; It creates more orphaned children than any other infectious disease; Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among HIV-positive individuals, causing over 30 percent of AIDS deaths; and As the number of tuberculosis cases has increased, a multi-drug resistant strain has emerged that poses a major public health threat in the US and around the world. With the increase in global travel and migration, we cannot be content to control tuberculosis in the United States. We must step up our efforts to eliminate the global threat of tuberculosis. That is what this amendment does. By providing additional funding for tuberculosis control, we can bolster our worldwide prevention and control efforts. The World Bank has determined that modern TB treatments are among the most cost-effective health interventions available today. For every dollar we spend on TB prevention and control, we can save an estimated $3 to $4. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a wise investment to address a very serious problem. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act. While the goals of this bill are noble, there are fundamental concerns with this legislation. One of the central tenets of most faith based organizations, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, is to reach out to those in need. I know that in churches in which I've been a member and churches in my district have several programs to serve the needy, such as food drives, senior nutrition programs, housing assistance, substance abuse counseling, after school programs and many other needed community services. Therse are services that most churches perform because they are consistent with that church's mission. A component of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act would expand Charitable Choice to allow faith based organizations to compete for federal funding for many of these services. The religious groups today compete and receive federal funding. But they cannot only serve their particular faith or beliefs. In fact, there are organizations such as the Baptist Joint Committee, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the United Jewish Communities Federation all fear that this legislation would interfere with their missions, rather than help them. We know that the first amendment prevents Congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This wall of separation has been a fundamental principle since the founding of our great nation. As a Christian I believe it is my duty to serve and my service is a reflection of my faith. Many Christians, Jewish and Muslims, do this everyday if we are practicing our beliefs. We do not need Federal tax dollars to practice and live our faith.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. We are asking for patients' rights and becoming impatient.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Our surveys in my own district, very urban, 60 percent of the people have group insurance under Federal law. Even though the legislature passed something 4 years ago, most people get their insurance under Federal law. That is why we have to pass something here on this floor like what the Senate passed. This legislation contains similar protections that we have had in Texas law, including provisions for an external appeals process. More importantly, the Senate version contains additional provisions to safeguard employers against frivolous lawsuits. Employers can only be held liable if they are directly responsible for the delay or the denial of treatment. So if an employer is acting like a doctor, they are going to be treated like a doctor. It is time that important health decisions are made by doctors and their patients, and not HMO bureaucrats, and it is time the House passed the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske Patient Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, thank the gentleman from New Jersey. He is the Chair of our Democratic Health Task Force and we have worked with each other for many years. Hopefully, by the time we leave for our August district work period, we will have debated and passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights on this floor.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Jersey for hosting this Special Order tonight on the need for a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. Most folks may not know that we spent 11 hours today in markup in our Committee on Energy and Commerce on energy legislation, and my colleague from New Jersey probably got tired of hearing about Texas so often, but that is what we are going to talk about tonight. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has been the leader for several years, and I am happy to join him in calling for immediate passage of a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We have a real opportunity to pass a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights this year. After 5 years of heated debate, the U.S. Senate passed a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights with protections for both patients and employers. Opponents of this measure argue that the legislation will result in a landslide of frivolous lawsuits against employers, but that is simply not true. We have a Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas for more than 4 years, now since 1997. In that time, we have had only 17 lawsuits filed. That is right, only 17 lawsuits. I know if you are watching this, you heard that from my fellow Texan (Mr. Turner) here just a few minutes ago. But, at the same time, we have had more than 1,000 patients cases where patients appealed a denied claim to an independent review organization, an IRO. In more than half of those cases, the IRO ruled in favor of the patient. That independent review organization more than half the time ruled in favor of the patient. I always use the example, I would like to have more than the luck of a flip of a coin when it comes to health care for myself, my family or constituents. In Texas, more than half the time the IRO found the HMO was wrong in whatever they said they would not cover for the patient. These independent review organizations are important not only because they protect the patients, but they protect the HMOs as well. Under Texas law, the HMO that follows the recommendation of that Independent Review Organization cannot be held liable for the damages in State court. That is right, an HMO who follows that Independent Review Organization recommendation cannot be held liable. There may be some other reason that they may have had a problem, but they are not responsible for that decision that was made if they stuck with it. If an HMO denies care and ignores the review, if the patient is injured or dies, the HMO can be held liable in State court. Thanks to that law, Texans have real enforceable laws to obtain health care that they paid for. But in the rest of the country, we do not. In fact, even in my own district, in Houston, Texas, I have constituents who have their insurance under Federal law. Sixty percent of people in my district have their insurance under Federal law. So no matter what our legislatures do in Texas, New Jersey, or the State of Washington, it does not help us under ERISA. We have to pass a strong law here on the House floor.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to he cuts that this bill makes in one or our most successful federal law enforcement initiatives, the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) program. This legislation would cut $17 million from COPS. This may not sound like a lot of money, but when you have a program whose goals is to get more officers on the streets, patrolling our neighborhoods and protecting our families, any cut is the wrong way to proceed. We should be standing here, talking about ways that we can increase funding for this program, so that more communities can take advantage of it and put more officers on the beat. In my hometown of Houston, more than 1,000 new officers have been hired by law enforcement agencies. And COPS doesn't just provide money for new officers for patrolling. COPS has other programs, like COPS in Schools, which funds the hiring of officers to make the schools where our children learn and my wife teaches, safer and more secure. Other programs, like COPS MORE (Making Officer Redeployment Effective), provides funds to acquire new technologies and equipment, and hire civilians for administrative tasks. This allows more police to spend their time pounding the pavement and stopping crooks, instead of pounding the typewriter in station houses. Since its authorization by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, COPS has added more than 110,000 community policing officers to our nation's streets. This is a program that works, and I hope that in the future, we can stand up and talk about how much money we are adding, rather than cutting, from this worthwhile program.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and classmate, the gentleman from North Carolina, for yielding time to me. Like our system goes here in Congress, I have a markup going on in the Committee on Energy and Commerce on the energy bill, and have been running back and forth. I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman, my colleague, in yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and as a proud cosponsor of the original resolution to protect one of our Nation's most sacred and beloved symbols, our flag, from desecration. This is the fourth consecutive Congress that we have taken up this resolution. I hope this time our colleagues in the Senate will join us in passing this amendment and sending it on to the States for ratification. Our flag is a symbol of the men and women who have fought and died for our country. Their sacrifice is represented by that flag. To millions of Americans, the flag is more than just colored dye and cotton, it is the physical manifestation of our pride, our honor, and our dignity both here and around the world. To see it stomped, burned, or otherwise desecrated is an affront to ordinary hardworking Americans. We cannot do anything about someone doing it in other parts of the world, but we can do something about it in our own country. To those who argue that this sacred symbol is just a piece of cloth, I challenge them to remember some of the ways our flag is used: leading our athletes during opening ceremonies for the Olympics, flying at half staff to mark national tragedies, and covering the remains of our brave soldiers and service personnel who have given their lives for our country. When the flag is desecrated, so, too, are the moments in these memories. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. I thank the chairman of the Committee for going to conference, because obviously I want to go to conference, but my concern is that we need to make sure we restore the funding to FEMA, and even look at the emergency needs that we will have, not just for my area in Houston, but all across the country. I rise in support of the motion of the ranking member to instruct conferees, particularly the section on restoring funds for FEMA. The need for the money is real. Again, FEMA's budget is $1.6 billion. The flood in Houston alone was $5 billion. FEMA typically pays half of the loss, so that is $2.5 billion. We will have more emergency needs in the last 3 or 4 months of the fiscal year. I spoke earlier, but let me share with you a story of a frustration that I know a lot of people have when they have these floods. I have a senior citizen couple. He is 70 years old, she is 63. Their house was destroyed. They were on a fixed income. They live on $2,000 a month. Their mortgage is paid off. The only thing they were eligible for was a small business loan. Granted, it was 4 percent, but because of their excellent credit rating, they were not eligible for a grant. This 70-year-old individual and the 63-year-old person are now looking at a 30-year loan. How many of us are going to be paying our home mortgages at 100 years old, or at 93 years old? That is what worries me about not providing the adequate resources to FEMA, because we will see more of this. A senior citizen should not have to say, ``I am going to sign a loan that is for 30 years because my house is destroyed.'' That is what is frustrating. That is why we need to make sure we provide the money FEMA needs, not just eliminate the rescission of the $389 million, but we need to provide what FEMA needs between now and October 1 for the losses in Houston, Texas, that we can see from here in this picture. This is not actually my district, this is downtown Houston. But can Members imagine some of the subdivisions that I represent? The water was that high above the homes. We are talking about hundreds and even thousands of homes that were damaged. That is why we need to make sure that FEMA has that money restored.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference, and also support of the later motion to instruct conferees to oppose rescission of funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the disaster relief fund. The Senate restored the $389 million that was cut in our original supplemental that passed here, but estimates now say that FEMA may need as much as a billion dollars between now and October 1. The need for money in this fund is real and it is pressing and we should not be reducing or cutting any funding from FEMA. Already this year there will be 27 major disaster declarations across our country, including the devastating funds in my hometown of Houston and across southern Texas, southeastern Texas, Louisiana, and even up into Philadelphia from Tropical Storm Allison. The damage estimates from this declaration alone are estimated to be $5 billion. Traditionally, FEMA pays about half of this amount in damage assistance so we are talking about $2.5 billion. Since FEMA's disaster budget is only $1.6 billion total, we need to make sure that funding is increased and not decreased. There is still a lot of time left in this fiscal year, and I would expect we have not seen the last of the disaster declarations and thus need more funding for disaster relief. To date, FEMA has had 85,000 disaster relief applications in the Houston area from Tropical Storm Allison. Of the 70,000 homes that FEMA inspected, 67,000 of those inspections are completed and 3,500 were completely destroyed. Over 10,000 suffered major damage and 33,000, almost 34,000, have minor damage, totaling 47,999 affected properties. Of the more than $500 million initially allocated for this disaster by FEMA, $434 million, or 84 percent of these funds, have already been committed; and we are not even 2 months after the disaster. That is, they either have been or will be sent out to those in need of assistance. That $434 million is already more than the $389 million that we cut in the last supplemental that passed this House. Remember, this is just one disaster with $5 billion in damages. Twenty-six other parts of our country have suffered disasters of varying degrees. That is why I would hope the House would agree with the Senate and restore the $389 million as the first step, and we need to make sure that we provide FEMA the money not just for my own constituents but also for all the people in our country who have experienced disasters.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to encourage our House leadership to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor as soon as possible, hopefully next week. The Senate took historic steps before the July 4 recess to pass a bipartisan, meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. The McCain-Kennedy compromise legislation includes strong patient protections that will ensure high quality health care for millions of Americans with private health insurance coverage. These protections include: Access. Patients will be able to go directly to specialists. Women have the right to go to their OB-GYNs, and children directly to their pediatricians. Communication. The Senate bill eliminates gag clauses which prohibit doctors from discussing all the treatment options, even those not covered by the plan, with their patients. Emergency room care for patients who reasonably believe that they are suffering from an emergency medical condition, so they do not have to drive by an emergency hospital to go to the one that is on their list. Internal-external appeals, which ensures that patients have access to timely and appropriate health care. And probably the most important is accountability if an HMO's denial or delay of treatment causes a person's injury or death. Many critics of this legislation say it would result in an onslaught of frivolous and expensive litigation, but this compromise bill also included many provisions to prevent such lawsuits from taking place. For example, the legislation requires patients to exhaust all their appeal procedures before they can sue their health plan. By requiring that patients utilize an independent review panel, the bill makes sure that medical decisions are made in the best interests of medical practice in a timely manner. In my home State of Texas, we have been using independent review organizations, or IROs, as we call them, to resolve HMO and patient coverage disputes since 1997, 4 years. These IROs are made up of experienced physicians who have the capability and the authority to resolve disputes for cases involving medical judgment. These provisions have been successful not only because they protect patients, but also because they protect the insurers. Plans that comply with the independent review organization's decision cannot be held liable for punitive damages if they do go to court. This plan has worked well. Since 1997, more than 1,000 patients and physicians have challenged the decisions of HMO plans. The independence of this process is demonstrated by its fairly even split. Of this about 1,000 appeals, in only 55 percent of these cases did the IRO fully or partially reverse the decision of that HMO. The Senate legislation protects employers from unnecessary litigation. Let me go back to the independent review organizations. Fifty-five percent of the time, these IROs found that there was something wrong with the HMO's decision. I would hope that our medical decisions have a better percentage than to flip a coin, so in 55 percent of the cases in Texas, either partially or totally the HMO was reversed by the independent review organization. The bill goes so far because it protects employers against any liability unless they are directly participating in the decision on a claim for benefits which result in personal injury or death. The bill specifically lists a number of areas that are not considered direct participation. In other words, as an employer, one could select the health plan, choose benefits to be covered under the plan, buy a Cadillac plan or a Chevrolet plan, and the employer would not be sued for that, or for advocating with the health plan on behalf of the beneficiary for coverage. I know in my own experience as a small business, oftentimes my biggest problem was advocating for our employees with our health insurance plan to say it should be covered. The only case where an employer would be liable would be if they choose to make medical decisions which harm or kill a patient. If the employer acts like a doctor, then the McCain-Kennedy bill hold them responsible like a doctor. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier, we have had many of these same provisions in Texas law now for 4 years. Yet, we have not seen a barrage of frivolous lawsuits, nor have insurance premiums risen at a faster rate than anywhere else in the Nation. Mr. Speaker, the Dingell-Ganske bill here in the House is very similar to the McCain-Kennedy bill, which is very similar to a law that we have had on the books in Texas for 4 years. It contains many of the same compromise provisions, which at the same time ensure that these protections can be enforced. It is time that the House followed suit and passed a real, meaningful, strong, bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. I urge the leadership not to delay in bringing the Dingell-Ganske bill to the floor for a vote.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we witnessed the damage wrought by Tropical Storm Allison after it wept through Texas and up the East Coast, the importance of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) really hit home. Thousands of my constituents suffered substantial flood damage to their homes and businesses, but some of these losses were mitigated because they had federal flood insurance. Unfortunately, not all my constituents who needed flood insurance could afford to purchase a policy. Because of a recent redraw of Houston's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) many of my low-income folks were brought into the 100-year flood plain, but could not afford the insurance. As a consequence of my constituents' experience, I rise today to introduce the Low Income Families Flood Insurance Access Act. This legislation helps bridge the insurance gap between those that can afford a flood policy and those that cannot. The bill would provide discounted flood insurance over a five-year term for low-income homeowners or renters whose primary residence is placed within a Special Flood Hazard Area (flood plain) by a redraw of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If their property is worth no more than $75,000, they would be eligible to receive a 50% discount on their flood insurance premiums for a five-year period. It also provides for limited retroactivity if their residence is placed within the floodplain within two years of the enactment of the legislation; otherwise, the five years would begin upon the placement of the property within the flood plain. I hope that this legislation will not only increase participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), but make its program more affordable for the economically disadvantaged. It provides an incentive for those who are most vulnerable to huge losses in floods to get the protection they need at a price they can afford. The NFIP plays a crucial role in lessening the impact of a major flooding disaster, but to make the program operate most effectively we need greater participation. I believe my legislation will extend the helping hand associated with flood insurance down to those people in greatest need of assistance. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can speed this bill through the 107th Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support the bill. I want to thank both the chairman of the subcommittee and also the ranking member because this amendment actually builds on the $1.5 million increase they have in the bill. This would help move generic drugs to the market quicker. We are talking about $2.5 million. It typically takes 6 to 12 months to review a new drug application, but 18 months for the generic drugs. This will help all our people, but particularly our seniors, who take more prescription drugs and spend billions every year on prescription drugs. Let us see if we can get generics there to save our seniors some dollars.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hardly ever disagree with my ranking member on appropriations, but I do not think this amendment is about retaliation. I think it is about a real energy debate we need to have here on this floor. I agree, Florida probably does not want to become like Louisiana or Texas. I am worried that they want to become like California, where they do not want to produce. I am glad at least they want to pipeline sometimes, because that is not the case in California. Yet, when the price goes up, because our supplies are low, they want price caps and they complain about it. I am worried about this, that if we do not adopt this amendment, if Florida recognizes you need to produce your resources, we will see a California in the southeastern United States, and we will have the same problem in the southeastern United States as we do in California. We can produce. I have platforms offshore that are emitting zero pollution right now. Thirty years ago we did not have that; but today we have that, because we have different standards today. That can be done in the Gulf of Mexico, whether it is in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, or Florida waters; and, frankly, it can be done off the coast of California. So I am glad to be here to enjoy this energy debate. And it is not about retaliation. I think it is about energy that we need to talk about on this floor.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We have worked together, the seven Members of Congress who represent Harris County. The Greens Bayou I share with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and we have been out to see the devastation of our constituents, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman.