Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy and talk about the critical importance to the people of Harris County, but before I do, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their efforts on flood control and drainage projects. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who serves on the subcommittee for his efforts over the years. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the level of funding for flood control projects, particularly the Greens Bayou and Hunting Bayou, all of which flow through my district in Harris County. Greens Bayou flooded nearly half of the 30,000 homes that were damaged by Tropical Storm Allison, while Hunting Bayou affected hundreds of homes as well. These two bayou systems need to be considered for increased support since the recent floods, including funding for continued improvement to both the Greens and the Hunting Bayou systems. Mr. Chairman, to see the estimated $4 billion-plus damage, and the loss of 23 lives, we on this floor realize the need to continue the Corps of Engineers projects not only in my district, but all of our districts throughout the country. In light of the recent severe flooding from Tropical Storm Allison, I ask the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their assistance to ensure that funding is restored as the bill moves through conference.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of the 5 minutes, but I wanted to bring a point of concern to the attention of my colleagues now that we have both the Chair of our appropriations subcommittee and the Chair of our substantive committee. Every day, in some of the busiest airports in America, hundreds of aircraft, charter planes, private jets, commercial flights, and even helicopters ferrying oil platform workers, disappear from the radar screens of our air traffic controllers. These flights are not victims of any air disaster, but rather the fact that, for a wide area of airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, we have no effective radar coverage. In this area, the air traffic controllers at Houston; Miami; and at Merida, Mexico; who share responsibilities for coverage in the Gulf, can neither see these flights nor communicate directly with the pilots who are flying them. For 3 years, the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, has worked with airline representatives, pilots, controllers, and other Federal entities, like the Department of Defense, to complete a Gulf of Mexico strategic plan. This plan sets out a detailed recommendation on how to resolve the Gulf of Mexico airspace issues. I urge the FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to act quickly and approve the solutions laid out by this working group. These solutions are inexpensive and easy to implement and would have a very real impact on the traffic jam in our skies in the Gulf of Mexico. It will increase safety in our skies and access to Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport, an important travel hub, especially for the growing markets in Central and South America. Where previously controllers have had to employ oceanic nonradar separation standards, this enhanced coverage will allow better utilization of empty airspace and more effective management of air traffic. This would reduce delays and save airlines and passengers time and money. I would hope the FAA would move forward with this much- needed project.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill. While there are areas that I hope we can improve via amendments that will be offered, it is a good bill that will continue meeting the transportation needs of our constituents. I would particularly like to praise the Committee for including funding for the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network from the Department of Transportation's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. Harris County, which includes Houston, Texas, is pioneering the practical application of critical data provided by Automatic Collision Notification boxes that are beginning to be installed on late-model automobiles. By deploying these boxes to 9-1-1 centers and trauma hospitals in Harris and Fort Bend Counties, these locations will be able to receive up-to-date information on automobile accident victims. This information will enable 9-1-1 operators to direct appropriate levels of resources to accident locations, and will also allow doctors and nurses at hospitals the time and information that they need to prepare for incoming accident victims. The goal of this technology is saving lives, through better distribution of emergency response personnel and a higher level of preparedness for incoming patients by emergency room personnel. The transmitted data will include the speed of the vehicle at impact; number of times that vehicle may have rolled; the number of occupants in the vehicle; heat generation, which may indicate whether or not the vehicle is on fire; and other valuable information. The lessons we learn in the implementation and testing of this system will serve as a model for other jurisdictions across the United States as they develop and deploy their own lifesaving networks. Again, I support this bill, and I support the funding for this innovative program that will save lives.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I represent an area that tragically succumbed to Tropical Storm Allison in northeast Harris County. I want to thank my Texas colleagues for putting this resolution together, but mainly to the hundreds and even thousands of volunteers and workers who donated their time to help Houston residents clean up. At the top of the list would be the men and women of FEMA who literally were on the ground before the waters receded, assessing the damage and getting a head start on setting up the disaster recovery centers, three in our congressional district in the Jacinto City Community Building, Sheldon Intermediate School, and also in the Aldine School District, the M.O. Campbell Center. To date, FEMA has received 62,000 applications for assistance, and also their recovery centers have played a role and provided a great deal of effort visiting the Red Cross Centers in our district, the FEMA neighborhood centers, and walking the streets in north and east Harris County showed the huge loss, but also the response from seeing literally people helping each other, communities pitching in and banding together, seeing people in Jacinto City and Galina Park in Aldine and northeast Houston, working together to help overcome this loss; seeing the loss at North Forest Independent School District, Sheldon ISD and also Houston Independent School District. To date, we know that FEMA and the Small Business Administration made literally millions of dollars of loans and grants to assist Houstonians in replacing their belongings and temporary housing. I urge FEMA to keep these disaster centers open as long as necessary so that individuals can continue to have access to vital services on a personal basis. I would also like to thank the Coast Guard and our National Guard for their effort and the many employees of the City of Houston and Harris County for their efforts to rescue people and as they go through the cleanup effort now, Mr. Speaker. As Houston and southeast Texas and other areas affected continue the long process of rebuilding, I want to express my thanks to everyone and will continue to work to make sure that the Federal funds are there to help people in disasters.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and also for his taking this hour, 9:30 Washington time, 8:30 Houston and San Antonio time. We have thousands of immigrants who come to this country with the hope that they will be able to fulfill their own American dream. They want to work, pay their taxes, and contribute to their and our society. They want to raise their children in a democracy where all people are created equal. Unfortunately, our current laws do not treat all people equally, especially legal immigrants. Most Americans who pay their taxes can count on food stamps, Medicaid or other safety net programs if they fall on hard times. But as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), mentioned, the 1996 welfare reform act denies this kind of assistance to many lawfully present immigrants, including children up to 5 years. As a result, immigrants and their children who played by the rules and are here legally face the impending threat of hunger and sickness in a way that no other taxpayer in our country could fathom. Additionally, because of the 5-year ban, U.S.-citizen children in immigrant families are less likely to be enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP programs even though they are still eligible for these programs. Mr. Speaker, each year immigrants pay approximately $1,800 more in taxes than they use in services; but in their time of need we slam the door in their face and say, Come back when you've been here 5 years. This law is arbitrary, unfair and I think we should overturn it. That is why I am proud to speak in support as my colleague is of H.R. 1143, the Legal Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act of 2001. I was a cosponsor of this in the last Congress and a cosponsor in this Congress. This legislation gives the States the option of allowing low- income legal immigrant children and pregnant women access to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Improvement Program, the CHIP program. If States opt to cover pregnant immigrant women and their children, then Federal matching funds would be available, because again if you are here legally and you are pregnant, we want that mother to have a healthy child. And if we provide those women with prenatal services, we will make sure that child is healthier; and in the long run it is to the benefit of all of us because we want healthy children. I also support H.R. 2142, the Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors Act. This important legislation restores food stamp program eligibility for low-income legal immigrants and makes other modest improvements in programs for working families and our elderly. I represent a very urban district. We have Hispanic elderly who literally have been here almost their whole life, although in the last few years they have been becoming citizens at a record pace; but there still are individuals who have built this country and need this assistance. I am also a strong supporter of the Women Immigrants Safe Harbor, or the WISH Act, which would provide vital support service to immigrant women who must endure the tragic and difficult situation of domestic violence. Immigrant victims of domestic violence are especially dependent on their abusers because of the restrictions passed in the 1996 welfare reform act. This law inhibits battered immigrant women from accessing the resources they need to leave their abuser. The WISH bill would allow legal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence to apply for critical safety net services such as medical and food assistance if they are victims of battery or extreme cruelty by a family member; and, two, demonstrate that receiving benefits would significantly lessen the risk of that battery. Mr. Speaker, eligibility for vital support services should be based on need and not just your immigrant status. Many tax-paying legal immigrants work in low-wage jobs and their families could use these vital support services to continue to succeed in our country. I want to thank my colleague for asking for this Special Order tonight to highlight the need for our immigrants because he is right, we are an immigrant Nation. Some of us just got here sooner than others. We need to be able to have them conform and succeed in our country because we all came from somewhere. That is why I am proud to be not only an American but also allow for legal immigrants to come and build this country, to continue to build this country like our forefathers did whether you be in San Antonio, Houston, or anywhere in our country. I thank the gentleman for taking this time tonight.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), my colleague. There are 200 miles, or really 199 miles separates Houston from San Antonio. San Antonio is a great city. The gentleman and I served in the legislature together before we came to Congress, and I enjoy serving with the gentleman, working on national issues, particularly his effort on national defense with veterans' issues and a number of military bases that we have in San Antonio. I tell people the only military base, outside of our Reserves in Houston, is our Coast Guard station, and they cannot take that away, because we have the highest foreign tonnage port in the country, so we have to have a Coast Guard station. Let me go back and talk a little bit about the employer liability sections, which is a big issue here in Washington, just like it was in Texas. Many opponents of the Patients' Bill of Rights argue that employers will be faced with a barrage of frivolous lawsuits if they pass the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill. That claim is untrue. The bill exempts employers from liability so long as they do not directly participate in medical decision-making, and that is why I am following my colleague in saying that that is a divergence in Texas law. This provision encourages employers not to get involved in health care decisions. Some Members of Congress and Senators believe that all employers should be exempted from liability, even if they are involved in medical decisions. Well, at one time as a business manager, I never wanted to be involved in medical decisions. That is why we contracted that with insurance carriers. But it is bad public policy to create a blanket exemption for employers, even when they actually make medical decisions. I hope our employers out there are not making those medical decisions. If they buy a policy or they hire someone to administer a plan, that plan needs to be fairly plain, and that employer should not be the one who makes the decision about whether one receives a bone marrow transplant; again, something that is readily accepted all across the country for the treatment of cancer. It is worse policy to create an incentive that gets employers more involved in medicine. I have said this before, but I think it bears repeating: The Ganske- Dingell-Norwood bill has very strong internal and external review provisions similar to Texas. Any insurer or employer who follows that process will be building a very strong evidentiary record that they had neither acted negligently or maliciously in dealing with a patient, and it would be virtually impossible for an enterprising trial lawyer to build a case for any damages. But one has to have accountability to be able to have a successful internal and external appeals process. Employers who are involved in medical decision-making will be protected from frivolous lawsuits and unlimited liability as long as they play by the rules. Again, as a former business manager, we have lots of rules we have to play by if one is a businessperson. But if employers are going to play doctor or medical provider, then they should be held accountable, just like doctors and medical providers should be. Let me talk a little bit about why we need to go to State court, because that is a concern, not only as a former business manager, but as someone who practiced law and enjoyed practicing in State courts instead of Federal courts, because you could get to trial quicker in State courts. Some proponents of the Patients' Bill of Rights argue that patients do not need access to State courts if they are injured by their plan. They think Federal courts are the appropriate venue to resolve health coverage disputes, but legal experts disagree. The American Bar Association, the National Judicial Conference, the State attorneys general, and numerous Federal judges take the position that medical injury cases belong in State and not Federal court. Even Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that, ``I have criticized Congress and Presidents for their propensity to enact more and more legislation which brings more and more cases to the Federal court system. Matters that can be adequately handled by States should be left to them.'' Well, the States clearly can adequately handle these types of cases. State courts have been the traditional forum for medical injury cases for more than 200 years and have vast experience in dealing with these types of matters. Federal courts, on the other hand, are not an appropriate place for all civil cases for several reasons. First, there are significantly fewer Federal courts than there are State courts. In my home State of Texas, there are 372 State courts available to hear these cases, but there are only 39 Federal courts. Geographical obstacles also prevent patients from accessing the Federal court. Families may have to travel significant distances to have their cases heard, when we think about the State of Texas with our long distances. Again, there are only 39 Federal courts and 372 State courts. That is why I say State courts are the best venue. One can get justice quicker for both the plaintiff and the defendant in State court. Keep in mind, in many of these cases an individual suffers from an injury or physical condition, forcing them to go to court in the first place, and this should not happen. Even if an individual gets to the Federal court, there may not be anyone to hear their case. There are currently more than 60 vacancies on the Federal bench. Mr. Speaker, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 promised Federal courts to give priority to criminal cases. This means that patients have to wait at the back of the line while the Federal courts deal with all of their criminal cases, including drug cases. And with criminal cases growing into the double digits, this can mean even longer access for individuals with the health care they need. State courts have always been the appropriate venue for resolving personal injury cases. I know in the State of Texas we have certain criminal courts that handle criminal cases, but we have civil courts that handle our State civil cases. Personal injuries caused by negligent HMOs should not be any different than personal injuries caused by the negligence of a doctor. They should go to the State court. I hope my colleagues will consider these arguments and recognize that patients need access to the State courts if the Patients' Bill of Rights is to be effective. Let me talk a little bit about the frivolous lawsuits and independent review organizations. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the Patients' Bill of Rights often claim that the passage of this legislation would cause a barrage of frivolous lawsuits. Well, my colleagues have heard about the situation in our State of Texas. We have not had that barrage of lawsuits; in fact, there have only been 17 of them since 1997, considering how many thousands have been filed in State court in Texas. This law provides nearly identical protections in the State of Texas that we would have in the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood legislation that resulted in the only 17 cases in the State of Texas. That is approximately 4 lawsuits per year, hardly the onslaught that we hear from the naysayers that they warn against. The reason is that in Texas we have a very strong independent review organization, or an IRO. If a health care plan denies treatment to a patient, he or she must appeal that decision to that independent review organization before proceeding to State court. The IRO is made up of experienced physicians who have the capability and authority to resolve the disputes and the cases involving medical judgment. Their decisions are binding on both the plans and the patients. If an IRO determines that a course of treatment is medically necessary, then an HMO must cover it. If a plan complies with the independent review organization decision, they cannot be held liable for punitive damages. They have worked well. Since 1997, we have had 1,000 patients and physicians who have challenged the decision of their plans. The process is fair. The independent review organizations do not favor patients or health plans. In fact, in only 55 percent of the cases, the independent review organization fully or partially reversed the HMO. Although that shows me that the HMO was wrong more than half the time, but they were corrected without having to go to a courthouse. In fact, the process worked so well that despite the U.S. 5th Court of Appeals' ruling that external appeals are violations of ERISA, Aetna and other HMO agreed to voluntarily submit disputes to the Independent Review Organizations for resolution. Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier there have been only 17 lawsuits filed in Texas since we passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, and I believe the external appeals process has been instrumental in the success of our plan and is giving the patients what they really want, access to timely, quality medical care while protecting the insurers from the costs of litigation. I believe that the success of the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill provides that same process that we would have. Patients must exhaust all internal and external appeals process before they can proceed to the courts. They need to be swift appeals, and there is no doubt that any patient who is trying to get health care really does not want to sue their insurance plan. They really want to get their health care. Let me talk about the costs. We have heard the opponents of the Patients' Bill of Rights argue that it would increase costs so much that an employee would start dropping their coverage. In Texas, however, providing patients with the same kind of protections has not lead to an increase in costs. Like I said earlier, the costs of insureds, HMOs managed care insurance in Texas has not grown any more than in States that do not have the same protections. Texas premiums are growing at the same rate of insurance rates in other States that do not have a patients' bill of rights. Even if the costs do go up, as some estimates suggest, it will only rise 4 percent, that equals about $2 per month per patient. Let us face it, $2 a month is not a lot of money these days. It barely buys you anything, maybe a cup of coffee, no frills. If you want a cappuccino, you are going to have to pay $3; six first class stamps; two 20-ounce bottles of Coca Cola or Diet Coke, if you are like I am; for $2, a 30- minute long distance call; and in some parts of the country, $2 will not even buy you a gallon of gas. But, for Mr. Speaker, $2 a month patients can have access to specialists and emergency room visits and their doctors are working for them and not against them. That is why I do not think it will even be $2; but even if it is, it is worth that amount of money. Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague here and there are a lot of issues that I know this House will be talking about that. We passed an HMO reform bill last year, the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill, and I would hope this House would again pass a strong HMO reform bill similar to what is passed in some of our States. Serving 20 years in the legislature, I have always said that States are a laboratory, if States can successfully pass legislation and it works, then we need to look at that on the national basis. We have had 4 years of experience in Texas, and I think we need to pass a similar law to what to Texas has on the national basis, but we also need to make sure that if employers are involved in medical decisions that they are also held liable just like doctors. Again, I do not want our employers involved in medical decisions because they have enough trouble producing their products and in trying to keep this country great.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are 17, from my understanding. Again, in Texas, we do not have any hesitation at all about going to the courthouse when we feel aggrieved, and so after 4 years, only 17 lawsuits. We have not had an overwhelming number of lawsuits filed under that law, but we have had people get the health care that they need.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my colleague from Colorado. I appreciate his statements on Texas and our power success. Typically, we do have success in power because we build generation plants. But that is not what I am here tonight to talk about. I am really here to talk about managed care reform and the Patients' Bill of Rights and HMO reform, and give a Texas perspective, because we have had since 1977 a very strong HMO reform bill that is in Texas law. Let me give the reasons why we need a Federal law to that effect. For one thing, last week the Senate kicked off their debate on legislation that is critical in importance to our Nation's health care system, which is a Patients' Bill of Rights. In the Senate it is the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill, and in the House it is the Ganske-Dingell- Norwood Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. They both do the same thing, the Senate and House bills. They ensure patients and their doctors have control over the important medical decisions, and not HMO bureaucrats or someone else who may not know anything about medicine except what they may look at in files. America's health insurance system has changed dramatically over the last 25 years. When Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in 1975, most Americans had some type of traditional insurance indemnity plan, an 80-20 plan like most of us used to have. They went to their doctor, they received the health care they needed, and the doctors were reimbursed by insurance companies. But all of that has changed with the advent of managed care, which has meant most patients first get preapproval for their health care from their insurance company. If the HMO does not approve the treatment, the patient cannot get it. If that patient is hurt because they are denied appropriate health care, that is just too bad under Federal law. Even worse, a patient cannot seek redress against that HMO for the damages in State court or even Federal Court, although there have been Federal cases filed recently; and some of them may sound better than others. But, again, typically Federal law does not allow a patient to sue under ERISA. ERISA exempts HMOs from being sued in State court, and requires them to be filed in Federal Court. Again, the Federal courts have not always been the place where you can get real redress for insurance-type lawsuits. Even if an HMO is found guilty of wrongdoing in Federal court, they are only responsible for the cost of the care they denied. So, in other words, if you are not given appropriate treatment for cancer, and 6 months or a year later that HMO is found to have wrongfully denied treatment, then they go back and give you that cancer treatment. But, again, 6 months or a year later health care delayed is health care denied, and your cancer may grow. So what does all that mean? Let us say an HMO denies bone marrow transplant to a cancer patient, even though it is medically necessary and the only way the patient will survive. That patient dies as a result of that bone marrow transplant being denied. The family of that cancer patient can now sue in Federal Court and only recover the cost of providing that bone marrow transplant. They cannot recover anything for that lost loved one, whether it be lost wages for that spouse or their children who may still be minors, and they cannot be compensated for their loss of that individual. Really what that means is that insurance company knows that the only thing they are going to have to do is provide that treatment, so why not deny your initial amount, when they know the only thing they are going to have to pay ultimately is that amount? So, in other words, they earn the interest while they are waiting for you to get to Federal Court, which, in most cases, can take months and years. That is hardly justice for anyone who has lost a loved one. With more than 160 million Americans receiving their health insurance through some kind of managed care, Congress needs to act. That is exactly what the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood Bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights does. The legislation would hold insurance companies accountable for their decisions that hurt or kill patients, just like a doctor is held responsible for his or her medical decisions that hurt or kill a patient. Mr. Speaker, there are two entities in this country currently not held responsible in State courts: HMOs and diplomats from another country. It was never Congress' intent to provide HMOs with the blanket immunity part of the ERISA bill passed in 1975 before we even had managed care and HMOs. It is time we corrected that mistake and close the ERISA loophole and provide for all Americans a meaningful and enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. Now, let me get to the point of why it is important to examine the Texas experience, because, again, States can pass laws, and those affect the insurance policies that are licensed and sold and regulated by that. For example, the State of Texas. That is why insurance policies that are licensed or come under ERISA are not covered by State law. So even though Texas passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in 1997 that is similar to the Ganske-Dingell-Norwood Bipartisan Patient Protection Act, it does not work unless it is under State law. Sixty percent of the people in my district in Houston, Texas, receive their insurance coverage under Federal law regulation and not State law. The State of Texas passed a Patients' Bill of Rights in 1997. It had a number of good things in it. One was access. Texans had direct access to specialists. Women could directly go to their OB-GYN, and children had direct access to their pediatrician. Communication. The Texas bill eliminates gag clauses which prohibited doctors from discussing treatment options with their patients, even though those treatment options were not part of or provided for in their plan. It provided for emergency room care for patients who reasonably believe they are suffering and went to an emergency room, an emergency medical condition. One of the important parts of Texas law is required for internal and external appeals. That ensures patients have access to independent objective panels to determine if treatments are medically necessary, so it is not just the HMO saying you are not eligible for that treatment. You can appeal to an independent and external panel and that decision is made. Accountability. That is why it is important that any Patients' Bill of Rights includes accountability, because all the other things I have listed are not important if you do not have accountability, accountability in health insurance plans. Denial of claims results in that injury or death to that patient, so you have to have accountability. In 1997 in Texas they originally passed, maybe it was 1995, they originally passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that then Governor Bush, now President Bush, vetoed. But in 1997 there were compromises made and the bill passed the legislature overwhelmingly. Governor Bush at that time did not sign the bill, but he let it become law without his signature. My concern is we are hearing some of the same arguments today that we heard in 1997 about the cost and the increased number of lawsuits against doctors and other health care providers in Texas that they used in 1997. We are hearing that same argument today here 4 years later on the Federal level. But the exact opposite is true in Texas. Since Texas enacted that law, only 17 cases have been filed. Texas has a strong independent review organization, the external review. Insurance patients must exhaust all appeals processes before they can go to court. Also, a patient can only sue their HMO if that HMO disregards that recommendation, that independent review organization. If a plan follows the independent review organization, then they cannot be held liable in State court for that. So we only have had 17 cases in 4 years. This process ensures that patients get their health care that they need in a timely fashion. They do not have to go to court and wait 2 or 3 years like we do now under ERISA before we get any kind of justice on treatment. Despite cries that this would increase the cost of health care premiums in Texas, premiums have not climbed any faster in Texas than they have in the rest of the Nation, who may not enjoy a State Patients' Bill of Rights. Texas' Patients' Bill of Rights provided patient protections for many of its residents and many Texans, but many Texans cannot benefit from that Texas law because they receive their health insurance through their employer who is covered under ERISA. That is why we need to close the ERISA loophole and enact the Patients' Bill of Rights on a Federal level. Mr. Speaker, I see my colleague from San Antonio, Texas, who was in the legislature in 1997 and debated the Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas, so I would be glad to yield to my colleague from San Antonio to talk about a little bit of what went on in the Texas Legislature and what he sees that we need to do here on the Federal level now.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the end of his current term quickly approaches, I rise to celebrate the career of Johnny Isbell, Mayor of the City of Pasadena, Texas. Mayor Isbell has been a central figure on the Pasadena City Council, serving, in various capacities for more than 24 years. As a dedicated and committed public servant, Johnny Isbell has earned the respect and admiration of the citizens of Pasadena for the many years he has given to local government. He served with distinction on the Pasadena City Council from 1969 to 1978 and again from 1989 to 1993. He first served as Mayor from 1981 to 1985. He was again elected Mayor in 1993 and again in 1997. Mayor Isbell was born in San Antonio in 1938 and has been a Pasadena resident for more than 50 years. He attended Lee Junior College and received a bachelor of science from the University of Houston in 1968. Johnny also served in the U.S. Army National Guard and the Air Force Reserves. Johnny has been a presence in all aspects of life in Pasadena, Texas. He is the founder and president of the Apache Oil Company. He is also the former director of the YMCA and served on the board of directors of the Houston Area Transportation Safety Council. He Is a past president of the South Pasadena Rotary, a past president of the San Jacinto Day Foundation, an honorary life director of the Pasadena Rodeo Association and a former member of the Harris County Civil Service commission. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak for many when I say that his tireless work will not soon be forgotten, and we are all thankful to him. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the career of Pasadena Mayor Johnny Isbell and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share some more stories on the devastation left in my hometown of Houston by Tropical Storm Allison. From Tuesday, June 5, when landfall was made through Sunday, June 10, when the rains began to taper off and the water began to recede, it is now estimated that over $4 billion of damage was done by this seemingly minor tropical storm. It also cost 23 lives in the Houston area. Of course this storm not only damaged Houston, but also Louisiana, Mississippi; and it dumped a great deal of water in Pennsylvania this past weekend. For my colleagues not from coastal areas, this was just a tropical storm. Damage was exclusively from flooding. There was no damage from high winds, tornadoes or other weather events had it been a full-blown hurricane. While many areas of Houston had significant flooding, the 29th district was particularly hard hit. Many of the city's bayous run through my district. Bayous such as Hunting and Greens, overflowed their banks, causing widespread flooding in businesses and residential areas. Over 10,000 residents were forced from their homes by Greens Bayou alone, as flooding reached the 1,000-year flood level. Even those who were not flooded out of their residences suffered thousands of dollars worth of damage to their homes and personal belongings. Damage estimates for homes have not yet been completed, but the total is significant. 303 homes totally destroyed; 12,451 with major damage and are uninhabitable; and 20,491 homes have minor damage, with families able to at least partially begin the process of moving back in. I would like to thank the Federal Energy Management Agency, FEMA, for their prompt response in the Houston area. Almost as soon as the rains stopped, FEMA personnel were establishing a command center in the Greens Point area and setting up disaster relief centers where victims could register for home inspections, SBA loans, or temporary housing assistance and other Federal benefits, along with State agencies in these centers. As of 6 p.m. last night, 47,000 people had registered with FEMA on their toll-free hot line; over 41,000 have registered for the disaster housing program; and $17 million in funding has been approved. For individual and family grant programs, almost 17,500 registrations have been received; and nearly $13 million in funding has been approved. I would like to recognize the thousands of volunteers from the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army in their role in the recovery process. These organizations quickly opened shelters for those driven from their homes. They have provided more than 800,000 meals to victims of this disaster and currently are offering additional aid so that individuals can begin to replace clothing and other belongings that were ruined or swept away during the floods. Also our Army, Air Force and National Guard, and AmeriCorps, and numerous other government agencies have contributed to helping Houstonians and people who live in Harris County clean up and begin the long process of rebuilding their lives. The task ahead of us, though, is going to be long and arduous. For example, the damage to our hospitals will place a heavy burden on our health care infrastructure for the near future. Let me share some of the numbers: in my district, East Houston Medical Center, complete evacuation for 2 or 3 months before reopening; maybe 1 year for complete restoration. Hermann Memorial Hospital, one of our two Tier I trauma centers in Houston, evacuated and closed for an estimated 6 to 8 weeks. Methodist Hospital closed due to extensive damage, potential partial reopening this week, but 6 months to restore completely. St. Luke's Hospital, their emergency room suffered extensive damage. Six months to 1 year for complete restoration. St. Joseph's Hospital, emergency room closed for extensive damage, 3 to 6 months before reopening, and 1 year before complete restoration. Northwest Columbia Hospital, closed and unable to operate possibly for 1 year due to extensive damage. Ben Taub, one of our public hospitals, full to capacity; emergency room on diversion status except for extreme cases. LBJ Hospital, damaged but still operating, another one of our public hospitals, full to capacity with emergency room operators up 260 percent compared to prestorm level. Park Plaza, emergency room operations up 440 percent compared to prestorm levels. Even though classes were out and summer school had not yet begun, our public schools were not spared. 155 of the 300 schools in Houston ISD suffered flood damage, with 13 of those sustaining substantial damage. Other districts were not spared, either. North Forest ISD's schools and administration building suffered severe damage, especially for office equipment and computers. They were also forced to postpone their summer school program. Additionally, the Sheldon Independent School District suffered severe flooding in all but two of their schools, and they have been forced to cancel part of their summer school program. There is a great deal of work to do, Mr. Speaker, but we will continue to rebuild our homes and schools and our business. I thank the agencies that helped us.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Interior, for yielding me the time. I am proud to follow some of my colleagues. As a country, we cannot enjoy a growing and cleaner economy without more domestic production of natural gas. It is clear that our Nation's demand for natural gas is growing significantly. If our Nation is to meet its growing demand, then we have to have access to gas-prone areas like Sale 181, which is really closer to other States than it is to Florida. We cannot set aside Florida. I wonder about my colleagues who want to have a vacation destination. People will not be able to drive there to enjoy Mickey Mouse unless we have production domestically. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand lower energy prices and continued reliability and at the same time discourage domestic production. Exploration and production of domestic energy sources are keys to staying in front of our energy needs. Sure, we need to conserve. Sure, we need to have alternatives, but conservation and alternatives will not satisfy the demands of the American people. We have to have production, particularly from natural gas, to fuel all of these cleaner-burning power plants that are on the drawing boards and actually being built. Mr. Chairman, Sale 181 actually during the last administration was left out of President Clinton's executive order in 1998 because it was agreed to by all the States, including Florida. In fact, the sale was specifically excluded from the current leasing moratorium language. Key stakeholders including Alabama, Florida and the Department of Defense were consulted on the 5-year plan. The sale of the area was drawn to ensure it was consistent with Florida's request for no oil and gas activities within 100 miles, but what we are talking about is within the Alabama border, and that is why we need this production.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) earlier was referring to the Maloney amendment and it was accepted, but I have some concerns with it; and I hope that in conference committee, the gentleman will consider these concerns. The amendment wrongfully substitutes the use of ``spot'' prices as an index for the oil and gas value for royalty purposes in all cases. The Clinton administration, when publishing the final oil valuation rule in March 2000, agreed with the Rocky Mountain producers that the use of spot prices was not an appropriate measure of the value. In fact, the current rule allows the use of comparable arm's-length sales of crude oil in the field to establish that value. What the Maloney amendment really does is have Congress endorse the ``duty-to-market'' concept in the oil and gas valuation rules. It wrongfully requires lessees to pay royalties based on downstream value- added system, rather than the ``wellhead'' value which is required by existing leases and current mineral leases statutes. This amendment seeks to prevent further royalty-in-kind crude oil pilot projects like in Wyoming, despite the analysis by the Minerals Management Service and the State of Wyoming, that the government received 45 cents per barrel more in revenue than it had received under the original or the current royalty-in-value system. Saved administrative costs should not be ignored as a policy matter, and the royalty-in-kind involves far less administration by the Department of the Interior than the royalty in value. The materials management service pilot project increasingly shows that the royalty-in-kind works. And in my home State of Texas, we have had a successful royalty-in-kind program for a number of years, and it can and does work very well. The minerals management service recently completed its evaluation of the Wyoming royalty-in-kind pilot project and published that report in the Federal Register for public comment, and yet there were no objections submitted by the public. The minerals management service based its Wyoming pilot on the criteria that to be successful the pilot must provide simplicity, accuracy, and certainty for leases and the government. The revenue should be revenue neutral or better for the government and must reduce the administrative burden for leases and the government. The Wyoming pilot met these criteria. Royalty-in-kind receipts exceeded comparable in-value royalties by approximately $810,000. In addition, the royalty-in-kind streamlined processes have established a foundation for administrative savings for the minerals management service and also the industry. Mr. Chairman, I hope the minerals management has made it clear that they would not force any Federal lands into the royalty-in-kind and States where the State is not a partner, and there is no mandatory royalty-in-kind program or mandatory expansion. The minerals management service should be allowed to manage the minerals and have the choice to use royalty-in-value or royalty-in-kind as allowed by the lease conditions, the market and the Federal statutes. At this critical point, we need to address our Nation's energy needs. We should not restrict or limit the government's ability to conduct programs that benefit us all, particularly the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at this amendment in conference committee, so it will benefit the taxpayers and also the producers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia who introduced this legislation for this opportunity to honor the commitment and courage of the Army National Guard units that continue to serve as part of the NATO peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. In April of 2000, during our Easter recess, I had the opportunity to visit the soldiers of the 49th ``Lone Star'' Armored Division of the Texas National Guard, during their tour of duty in Bosnia. This unit recorded a first in Army history, as it was the first time that a National Guard division headquarters was the command and control element of active duty component forces as well as multinational forces. These Texas citizen-soldiers acquitted themselves with honor and proved that the Guard is a reliable part of our armed forces. The soldiers in these units aren't the only ones who deserve recognition. These men and women would not be able to serve without the sacrifices made by their families, who do without a spouse or parent, or their employers, who lose the service of a valued employee, for the length of their tour. This mission underscores the value of the National Guard and Reserve to the security of the United States. As members of Congress, we recognize the benefit of the National Guard and Reserve and I hope that we will recognize the needs of these units so that they can continue to be an effective component of our armed services.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in praising the men and women of organized labor. Organized labor has been a key proponent in the battle for fair wages and better working conditions and safer working conditions throughout the history of our Nation. Just like my colleague from California, let me say a little background because I know people all over the country do not know that most of us represent individual districts. I started out in high school, as we call it, a fly boy at a newspaper, and worked in my apprenticeship, graduating from college; at the same time also getting my journeyman as a union printer, and finding out in 1971 I made more as a union printer than I did as a college graduate with an undergraduate degree in business. So I stayed in the printing business and worked there and ended up helping manage a small business. In that time, I got involved in politics, elected to the legislature, went back to law school at night but still worked in the printing business for 23 years and still kept my card in the union. With the merging now of the Typographical Union with the Communications Workers Union, I can proudly say that I am not working at the trade but a member of the Communications Workers Union. I tell people do not ask me to fix their phone. I cannot even run a press any more. I have been ruined by serving in Congress. I believe that the right to bargain collectively is a basic civil right and that unions are an avenue of that fair treatment and economic stability for working people. The right for people to bargain collectively and independently is not only important in our country but around the world because of the litmus test on the freedom that a society has. We have seen the impact that employee groups can have in establishing more Democratic governments in institutions worldwide, with one example of the success being the Solidarity Union in Poland. In other countries that are still autocratic regimes, such as China and Vietnam, the rights of workers to organize into unions or employee groups and push for improved pay and working conditions will be the key to showing that that country is ready for real governmental and economic reforms and establishing a free society and the rule of law. So freedom to organize is a basic civil right that free societies enjoy. Back here in America, last year 475,000 people joined unions in 2000. Despite the fact that oftentimes this is a basic right of workers, they face intimidation from employers who break the law and try to prevent workers from organizing. Let me read just a few statistics about what workers have to go through to exercise their rights. Twenty-five percent of employers fire workers that try to organize unions. Over 90 percent of the employers, upon hearing that their workers want to organize, force employees to attend closed-door meetings and listen to the anti-union propaganda. Whether it is true or not, no one really knows since they are closed door. Thirty-three percent of employers illegally fire workers who tried to form unions and 50 percent of employers, half of the employers, threatened to shut down if their employees organize. If workers in America are subject to this kind of discrimination, then we can only imagine what workers in the rest of the world have to go through when they want to join together to bargain collectively. Before I get too far along, I have a particular piece of legislation that came out of an experience in Houston that I want to speak to. This is the second session I have introduced what is now H.R. 652, the Labor Relations First Contract Negotiation Act. This bill was introduced to enhance the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively for improved living standards. It will require mediation and ultimately arbitration if an employer and newly-elected representative had not reached a collective bargaining agreement within 60 days. Time after time, valid elections are held where workers choose to be represented by a union, but months and sometimes years later will go by and these workers still have no contract even though they voted for union representation. This bill is important because what we see with the NLRB is that the delay is often justice denied, and what we would like to see is that bill come to a vote so we can debate real labor law reform on both sides of the issue. I believe passage of that bill will help with short-circuiting the delay that we have with the NLRB and actually have workers go back to work and prevent workers and employers being locked in sometimes a stalemate. America has a great history of recognizing workers and their right to organize, but we still have a long way to go. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his effort today and will work with him to continue to fight for the rights of workers not only here in America but throughout the world. I know the bumper sticker I see in Houston often says, ``If you like weekends, it is brought to you by unions.'' I think that says more than any of us can say, Madam Speaker.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, whatever time I have left, I know that Storm Allison moved from Texas to Louisiana, and we are seeing that devastation along the Gulf Coast, and I know we will be here to provide that funding.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the recent flooding in my hometown of Houston and the devastation it has caused. I know the national news has covered some of it, but watching my colleagues around the country with their devastation in previous years, I had no idea until this last week and this last weekend what major flood waters can do. Starting last Tuesday, June 5, Tropical Storm Allison made landfall on the Southeast Texas coastline, bringing with it 5 days of rain and damages estimated to be $1 billion or more and the countless loss of property and disruption of people's lives and as many as 20 people have lost their lives. While many areas of Houston and Harris County have significant flooding, our 29th district, that I am honored to represent, was hit particularly hard, because of the residential nature of our district. Many of the city's bayous run through our district, and two of these bayous, Hunting and Greens bayous, overflowed their banks causing widespread flooding. Over 10,000 residents were forced to leave their homes by Greens Bayou alone, as flooding in the area reached a 1,000 year level. Even those who were not flooded out of their homes suffered thousands of dollars worth of damage to their homes in personal belongings. The damage from this storm, however, is not limited just to our residential areas. The whole community has been hit, area hospitals, not only our regional hospitals on Interstate 10, but the Texas Medical Center suffered interruptions in power that make treating existing patients along with flood-related casualties extremely difficult. Several were forced to close because of the flooding problems in the Texas Medical Center. There are backups working now. But over the weekend, when you can imagine with the devastation that we had, the communications across the city were disrupted as well, with Houston's emergency communications network knocked out; and fire and rescue workers were forced to often rely on hand-held radios. Over 100,000 residents were without phone service and the 911 system was overwhelmed, and only quick action by our Harris County employees prevented loss of more long-distance and cellular communications. Even today, 15,000 Houston and Harris County residents, including our district office, are without phone service, as the central office in Houston was under 5 feet of water for most of the weekend. Even though classes are out for the summer and schools have not yet begun for the summer school, our public schools have not been spared. Over 300 Houston Independent School Districts have suffered flood damage. Other districts were not spared. North Forest ISD is now using two of their schools that were not hit for shelters, manned by the Red Cross and school employees, suffered a great deal of damage, including office equipment and computers. Sheldon Independent School District suffered serious flooding in their whole district, and only two schools were not flooded. Right now, the waters have receded; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency is on the ground, helping those who have lost their homes and their property and their businesses to rebuild. Disaster recovery centers, where residents can go and begin accessing Federal aid, are being established in time through this week and will be up and running, and people have begun the long process of putting their lives back together. While we cannot prevent a catastrophe of this magnitude, there are actions we can take both locally and in Washington to lessen the impact of future flooding. At the local level, I encourage every resident possible to purchase flood insurance. It is affordable. The average cost about $350 a year. And for more information, they can call 1-888-CALL-FLOOD or go online which is http://www.fema.gov/nfip. On the Federal level, we can do more. For the last several years, funding for our Harris County Flood Control has been steady, but we know we need to do better. I have walked the streets yesterday and today visiting with our FEMA representatives in areas in Aldine, Mesa Road and Sheldon, to CE King areas and seeing the devastation, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage my constituents and all people to call the 1-800 number for FEMA, 1-800- 462-9029 to make sure they get their information there so FEMA can do the job that we expect them to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, both the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the ranking member of the subcommittee, for bringing this bill forward. And I am glad to follow my colleague, who is chair of the House Committee on Commerce, because I served with him in my first term in Congress on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation when we had a Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I rise in support of the authorization that recognizes the United States Coast Guard and provides the necessary funding so that our waterways will continue to be the safest in the world. And I would like to speak briefly about the impact the Coast Guard has on not only Houston but also on the Port of Houston that I am honored to represent. The Houston-Galveston Vessel Traffic Service, the VTS, is located in Galena Park, Texas. That Coast Guard facility plays a key role in maintaining maritime safety and efficiency in the Houston-Galveston region, which includes the Port of Houston. The Port of Houston represents the largest petrochemical port in the United States. It has the largest volume of foreign tonnage of all U.S. ports and the second largest in combined tonnage and serves over 7,000 vessels a year. Acting as a communications hub, our VTS accomplishes its mission by providing accurate, relevant, and timely information to mariners, port authorities, facility operators, and local, State, and Federal agencies. This information prevents vessel collisions, groundings, and consequently reduces the loss of life, property, as well as environmental damage associated with these incidents. We basically have an industrial port. Our VTS information also enables waterway managers, mariners, and advisory groups to better understand the port's waterway systems and to make improvements to vessel routing and safety. Our area is also served by a Coast Guard Marine Safety Office that protects the lives and the properties of all of us that enjoy and benefit from not only our industrial port but the boating public. I congratulate our local commander, Peter S. Simons, and the 48 men and women under his command for their excellent job and performance. Mr. Chairman, I encourage passage of this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to talk about recent events in my hometown of Houston. On Tuesday, May 22, while we were in session, the law enforcement community suffered several tragedies. First, during routine investigation of a dispute over damage to a car between a brother and sister, Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Joseph Dennis was killed. Deputy Dennis, while responding to the complaint, was informed that the brother had just driven through the area. He proceeded to pursue the young man, and, in the process of apprehending him, was shot while attempting to handcuff the assailant. The suspect fled the scene, but was tracked down later in the evening and arrested with the murder weapon, the deputy's weapon, and the handcuffs still in place on his left wrist. Later that evening, Houston Police Officers Albert Vasquez and Enrique Duharte-Tur, two of several officers working off-duty jobs as security guards at an apartment complex, were shot while apprehending five suspects in drug-related charges. Officer Vasquez was killed instantly while Officer Duharte-Tur remains hospitalized in critical condition. The suspect in this killing was also wounded and apprehended at the scene. Additionally, last Sunday, May 19, HPD Officer Carlton Jones was killed when his vehicle flipped over while on a routine patrol in my congressional district. These deaths are in addition to the loss of Harris County Deputies Oscar Hill, J. C. Risley, and Barret Hill, all of whom were killed in separate incidents in the line of duty over the last 11 months in Harris County. Harris County, where Houston is located, is leading the Nation in the grim category of peace officers killed according to the National Law Enforcement Officers' Fund. This recent spate of fatalities comes a week after Congress highlighted the dangers that the men and women of law enforcement face every day with National Police Officers' Week and National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. It serves as a reminder of the bravery and dedication of those who put their lives on the line to protect our families, our homes, and our communities. Peace officers and their families know better than anyone the perils and risks involved in their job. Yet every day, they put on a badge and make our Nation a safer place. While we should never forget these officers, we also need to remember their spouses, their children and friends who miss them dearly. Our hearts go out to those survivors who are trying to cope with saying good-bye to a loved one. We are indebted to the survivors for the courage of these officers, and we share their grief and offer kind words knowing that it is a poor substitute for their loss. Every day, ordinary men and women make an extraordinary commitment when they put on a badge that symbolizes the oath they take to protect and serve. The badge also makes them a target. Every day, they leave their families behind not knowing if they will come home tonight. Madam Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 94, the Law Enforcement Officers' Flag Memorial Act of 2001. This legislation seeks to honor slain law enforcement officers by providing their families a Capitol-flown U.S. flag. In the meantime, Congress should continue to make sure that we keep our commitment to the law enforcement community by providing funding for more officers, better equipment, and advanced training. It not only saves the lives of officers, but it makes our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods a safer place.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Pasadena City Councilman Gene ``Iggy'' Garison and to thank him for his distinguished service. Councilman Garison was first elected to the Pasadena City Council in 1993, served as Mayor Pro Tem from 1996 to 1997 and is currently serving his fourth two-year term. He is a dedicated and committed public servant, and his constituents are fortunate to have him as their representative. Councilman Garison was born in 1942 and has lived in Pasadena for nearly 30 years. Despite recent health problems, he continues to be a driving force in Pasadena. He has touched the lives of so many people and has made numerous civic contributions, As a small gesture of the communities appreciation, the San Jacinto Day Foundation recently decided that the city's annual Strawberry Festival would be dedicated to lggy Garison. As a member of the City Council, Garison has been responsible for many improvements in Pasadena, His accomplishments include the revitalization of North Pasadena, the Capitan Theatre and the Corrigan Center, During his tenure, he has worked hard to reduce crime and to improve the city's infrastructure, particularly streets, sidewalks and sewer lines. Councilman Garison has also promoted the demolition of abandoned and deteriorated structures and continues his efforts to reduce flooding. Iggy Garison has always welcomed opportunities to be of service to his country and his community. He served in the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard. He was a valuable member of the Pasadena Police Department. He was a distinguished volunteer firefighter. And he was an investigator for Constable George Larkin. Councilman Garison is a member of the Houston Fire Museum board, the San Jacinto Foundation, the American Legion, the Elks Lodge, the National Guard Association, the Harris County Mayor and Council Association, the National League of Cities, the Texas Municipal League, the Association of Federal, State and Municipal Employees Local 1550, and the 100 Club. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Pasadena, I would like to thank Gene ``Iggy'' Garison, as well as his wife, Susie; his son, John, his stepdaughter, Tammy; his stepson, Sam; and his grandson, Tyler for their dedication, service and commitment to the City of Pasadena. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this distinguished man.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Milby High School. This is a school in East End Houston named after Charles H. Milby who was an important advocate for the creation of the Houston Ship Channel. Charles H. Milby was born in Indianola, Texas on August 29, 1852, the seventh and youngest child of William P. and Mary Y. Milby. Charles' father was a member of the Texas Congress from 1842 to 1844. Throughout his life, Charles H. Milby was always concerned about improving the economy and welfare of his community. He served as a member of the original committee that presented the U.S. Federal Government with the idea of a deep-water port for Houston. Mr. Milby died on July 1925 and in 1926, Charles H. Milby High School was named in honor of his many contributions to the East End area. In 1926, Milby High School opened its doors with 212 students and 13 teachers. Today Milby High School has over 3,000 students and is considered the oldest and largest school in the Houston Independent School District. With its proud colors of blue and gold, and its mascot of the fighting buffalo, Milby High School has educated hundreds of alumni veterans who fought in World War II, Vietnam, and the Korean War. Today, Milby is known for their legendary basketball coach, Boyce Honea, class of 1959. He has been with the school for nearly 25 years, has won many district championships, and 9 victories in the annual 32- team J. C. Tournament. Their school spirit is also evident in their cheerleading squad which participates in yearly competitions and is sponsored by two national cheerleading companies. Most notable, however is Milby's Science and Engineering Magnet Program which attracts many students each year from all over Houston. Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Milby's 75th Anniversary, there will be a 21-gun salute for the veterans and former students who died in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, on June 2 at 1601 Broadway. A 4-foot-by-16-foot granite memorial wall will be donated in their honor by the Milby Anniversary Alumni Association. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Milby High School on its 75th Anniversary. I would also ask that my colleagues in the House join me in congratulating the dedicated teachers, administrators, some of whom are alumni, parents and students for 75 years of work and dedication to the East End and our Houston community.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to follow my colleague from Texas, because we could not be any more different, I guess. I have two children that went to public schools and they did very well. They did not come to D.C., but they went to schools in my own district in urban Houston. This is a good bipartisan bill. It raises the authorization levels to amounts that we hope to be able to match, and I hope that next year we will do it and this year, with the appropriations. Vouchers go the opposite way of the intent of this bill. It takes money away from public schools. Public education is not a monopoly. We as parents already have that choice. The statement I heard that there has been a monopoly for 35 years and the failure of the public school system is outrageous. Who do we think has been running this country for the last 35 years? The 95 percent of the people who went to public schools in this country. The product of our public schools are the ones who run it. This amendment is a slap in the face of thousands of educators and parents who believe in public schools every day and work hard. I have been to every public school in my district and I will take my colleagues to the depths of the inner city in Houston and show them quality education in the public schools. There is another country western song my colleague may remember. The teachers and the parents and everyone who works hard every day to make our public schools work, they may want to say, ``take this job and shove it.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-Smith Amendment would reinstate the Mexico City anti-international family planning policy known as the global ``gag'' rule. This policy requires that foreign non-government organizations (NGOs) 1. Withhold information from pregnant women about the option of legal abortion and where to obtain safe abortion services. 2. Refuse to provide legal abortion services, 3. Sacrifice the right to engage in any public debate or public information effort on the availability of legal abortions. 4. And, most importantly, it prevents the NGOs from educating women and families on family planning options that would help prevent abortions in the first place. The subject of abortion has always been controversial. Very often highly charged emotions and special interest organizations enter the debate and muddle the true issue at hand. The key issue of debate today should be on whether educating women and families about family planning services will reduce the number of abortions each year. The passage of the Hyde-Smith amendment would prevent educating women and families on the issue of abortion. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against Hyde-Smith amendment so that we can educate women and families about family planning services and ways to reduce the number of abortions each year in foreign countries. I would also like to clarify that U.S. taxpayer funds are not being used for foreign (NGO's) abortions or for the advocacy of abortion. The Hyde-Smith amendment confuses people by stating that no federal U.S. funds will be used to fund abortions or family planning services. These activities have already been prohibited by longstanding U.S. statues, and recipients of U.S. international family planning assistance are in compliance with those laws. NGO's use their own funds to provide family planning and legal abortion services. Finally, I would like to address their HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa. The Hyde-Smith amendment interferes with the effectiveness of HIV/ AIDS prevention efforts. 36 million people worldwide are living with and dying from AIDS. A majority of these people are in developing countries. This is especially true in South Africa, where 55% of new infections occur among women and where the disease is spreading most rapidly among the young. Family planning providers are a key effort in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, other sexually-transmitted diseases, and unintended pregnancy. However, it is these same programs that are being targeted by the gag rule in the Hyde-Smith amendment since abortion is legal in South Africa and clinics there do provide women with information about abortion in the context of pregnancy options counseling. To reduce the number of abortions and to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS we must educate women and families on family planning. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Smith amendment that would strike Rep. Lee's language containing the text of H.R. 755, the Global Democracy Protection Act.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women who are part of the blue line that keep our homes, our families, and our neighborhoods safe and secure. Every day, they put themselves in the line of fire, confronting crime and those who engage in it, to make our communities a better place to live. Our nation's law enforcement officers put their lives on the line, just like the men and women of our armed forces, to protect Americans. For that reason, I have introduced legislation that would provide a Capitol-flown flag for deceased law enforcement officers. H.R. 94 would be a step toward this deserved recognition. I encourage other Members to join me in passing this legislation, to properly show our appreciation for the risk that our nation's law enforcement officers take just by showing up at work every day.