Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, unprecedented number of American consumers are flocking to the Internet to transact business and tap the nearly limitless informational databases. The explosion in Internet usage, however, is not without problems. Unlike shopping in a mall or browsing through a library where individuals travel anonymously through the merchandise racks and library stacks, the Internet is becoming less and less anonymous. Direct marketing firms are now trying to identify individuals as they surf the web to isolate where they visit and what they are viewing. This new data collection practice is most often described as Internet profiling. Internet profiling describes the practice of joining a consumer's personal information with his or her Internet viewing habits. To develop this detailed profile a ``persistent cookie'' must be attached to a consumer's cookie as they move through a web site. A persistent cookie is a small text file copied for varying lengths of time to consumers' computers to track their movements while online. My legislation will prohibit Internet Service Providers (ISP) and web site operators from allowing third parties to attach these persistent cookies to a consumer's computer without his or her knowledge and consent. In addition, the legislation requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate rules specifying that all operators of a Web site or online service provide a clear and conspicuous notice of their privacy policy in clear, non-legalistic terms. The bill also requires a Web site or online service to provide consumers with an option to prevent the use of their personal information for any activity other than the transaction. Finally, the privacy policy must clearly state how any collected information will be shared or transferred to an external company or third party. While my legislation gives consumers more information and control over how they use the Internet, I have also included a provision that will hold e-commerce companies to their privacy policies. With the insolvency of many dot-com companies, often the only tangible asset left to satisfy creditors is a consumers transaction and personal information. The global reach of the Internet is beneficial only so long as the information traveling through cyberspace remains private. Consumers will pull back from this burgeoning information and commerce tool if they believe it is being used to invade their privacy. While I understand that there are many differing approaches to the issues of Internet privacy, I believe this legislation addresses a critical component of the Internet privacy debate and I look forward to moving it in the 107th Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings about our new rules package. We have a new president, new House, and new Senate, but we are beginning the new millennium with some of the same partisan divisions. My friends in the Majority want to pass a new rules package for the 107th Congress that does little to address the views and concerns of the Minority. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, despite all the talk about bipartisanship, little has been done in the House to modify committee ratios to reflect the Minority's gains in the last election, or even the gains made by Democrats in 1998. I believe all committees in the House should reflect the 51-49 percent split between Democrats and Republicans. While I was pleased to see that the Republicans are considering adding a seat for each party to Appropriations, Commerce, and Ways and Means, this will do nothing to achieve parity on these committees. In fact, if one member is added to both sides of the Commerce Committee, on which I serve, the ratio will still be 55-45. While I welcome new colleagues to these committees, the addition does nothing to achieve the parity the minority is seeking. The reality is that the House now has one of the smallest majorities in the history of our country. Committee ratios should reflect that small majority. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stand up here today and throw cold water on the 107th Congress. In fact, I was pleased to see that the Republicans rejected efforts to bring back proxy voting. I approved of this reform when it was instituted in the 104th Congress, and I am pleased to see that the majority has chosen to keep it. Nevertheless, I have concerns about this rules package, and hope that the majority recognizes the gains made by Democrats during the electoral process. We are all going to remember the unfulfilled potential of the 106th Congress, I do not want the same fate to befall the 107th Congress. I do not want to feel like Tom Hanks, stranded on an island talking to a volley ball. This body must learn to communicate and allow input in the decision making process. I have great hopes for the 107th Congress, but the success or failure of the legislative agenda rests solely with the majority.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opinions on the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the Omnibus package. Now that we have reached an agreement on this bill, I suggest that we take a look at what has changed from the bill that was practically a ``done deal'' in October to the piece of legislation that is before us. While the overall funding for education has risen approximately $6.5 to $6.6 billion over FY 2000, which would be the largest increase in education funding ever, funding was cut by over $1.3 billion from the figures agreed to in the October version of the budget. The whole Labor-HHS bill was cut approximately $2.5 billion from that agreement, so over half of the cuts to this bill come from education funding. Here is a sampling of the final funding levels for education programs in this bill: $1.2 billion for the School Renovation Initiative; funding for Head Start is at $6.2 billion, an increase of $933 million over FY 2000; $851 billion for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, an increase of $372 million; $1.62 billion for the Class Size Reduction and Teacher Assistance program; $8.8 billion for Pell Grants, which would set the maximum award at $3,750, an increase of $450 from FY 2000; and $295 million for GEAR UP, an increase of $100 million over FY 2000. While I applaud the increases in education funding that this bill represents, I am saddened that we have chosen to cut education funding from the agreement we reached in October 2000. By leaving this important bill until the final days of the 106th Congress, we have subjected these programs to more scrutiny than other appropriations, and have chosen to cut the hopes and dreams of future generations. Mr. Speaker, while I plan to vote in favor of this bill, I do so with a heavy heart. I only hope that this Congress is not remembered as the Grinch that stole the Christmas gift of education that our children have been waiting for all year long.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday December 7, 2000, I was unavoidably detained in my district and missed rollcall vote 601. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the Constitution abolishing the Electoral College. Mr. Speaker, on November 7, 2000 two Presidents may have been elected. Vice President Gore received a majority of the popular vote cast that day and Governor Bush may have received a majority of the elector college electors. Regardless of your political viewpoints, I believe that from this point forward the President of the United States should be elected by direct popular vote. This legislation will abolish the electoral college and ensure that when the American people step into the voting booth they, and not a slate of faceless electors, will choose the next President. The Founding Fathers installed the electoral college as a mechanism to ensure only the best and brightest individuals of their time served as our President. This relic of a bygone era was created because the Founding Fathers did not trust Americans to learn all they needed to know to make an informed decision. But times have changed and the American people have come along way from those days. We now live in an era of high-speed Internet access, instantaneous media coverage of international events, 24-hour news stations, and cross-country flights. There is no reason all Americans can't access the information they need to make an informed choice about who they want as their President. There was a lot of discussion about trust in the recent Presidential campaign--on both sides: trusting people to make their own choices about retirement savings; trusting seniors to choose their own prescription drug plans; trusting women to control their reproductive health. Well, if we are going to entrust Americans to make these personal choices, we must also trust them to choose the President they believe best represents their interests. Americans do not need to be protected from their own decisions--it's time to trust them. In the 20th Century we gave women the right to vote, allowed direct elections of our United States Senators, and passed numerous voting initiatives designed to open the polling place to all citizens wishing to participate. In the 21st Century, we must to sweep away these last archaic roadblocks and move forward to a truly modern democracy.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, influenza is a serious illness that afflicts millions of Americans each year. While most Americans recover after a few days, influenza causes thousands of deaths each year, mostly among the elderly. Fortunately, vaccination can prevent a person from becoming infected with influenza. Influenza vaccines are developed each year because the flu virus naturally mutates and changes. This year's strain of flu vaccine has been a particularly difficult strain to produce for all manufacturers, and as a result, there are lower than normal yields. Although we expect there will be sufficient vaccines for this year, there has been a delay in releasing vaccines to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended vaccinations first be given to individuals who are at particularly high risk for developing complications. This group includes individuals who are 65 years or older, people who suffer from chronic illnesses, individuals in nursing homes, children who are undergoing long-term aspirin therapy, and pregnant women. Ninety percent of vaccines are distributed by private sector distributors for use by health care providers. This resolution urges these private sector distributors to follow the CDC's recommendations to ensure that those at highest risk for influenza complications be given priority in receiving their vaccine. H. Res. -- Whereas influenza is a contagious viral infection that affects the respiratory tract; Whereas people of any age can become infected with influenza; Whereas, although most people who become infected with influenza recover within a few days, some people develop serious complications that can become life-threatening; Whereas influenza causes thousands of deaths each year, mostly among the elderly; Whereas vaccination can prevent a person from becoming infected with influenza; Whereas the periodic mutation of the influenza virus requires the influenza vaccine to be annually updated to contain the most recent influenza virus strains; Whereas a lower-than-expected yield of one of the components of this season's influenza vaccine has caused the distribution of the vaccine to be delayed; Whereas the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are working closely with vaccine manufacturers to facilitate the availability of a safe and effective influenza vaccine for this influenza season; Whereas temporary shortages of the influenza vaccine early in this influenza season may require decisions to be made regarding how to prioritize the use of the available vaccine; Whereas the vaccine available early in this influenza season should be used to maximize the protection of people at a high risk of developing complications from an influenza infection; Whereas the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the groups of people at a high (1) people who are 65 and older; (2) residents of nursing homes and other chronic-care facilities that house people who have chronic medical conditions; (3) people who have chronic disorders of the pulmonary or cardiovascular systems, including asthma; (4) people who have had required medical follow up or hospitalization during the past year because of chronic metabolic disease, kidney dysfunction, blood disorders, or immunosuppression; (5) children and teenagers who are receiving long-term aspirin therapy; and (6) women who will be in the second or third trimester of pregnancy during the influenza season; Whereas all influenza vaccine used in the United States is produced in the private sector, and 90 percent of that vaccine is distributed by private-sector distributors for use by health care providers; Whereas reports have indicated that certain distributors of the influenza vaccine are taking advantage of the influenza vaccine shortage by raising their prices by as much as 500 percent; Whereas distributors are first supplying those buyers willing to pay the highest price for the influenza vaccine, even when those buyers were the last to order; Whereas, for example, although the Director of the California Department of Health Services contracted with a distributor in February to purchase influenza vaccine at a cost of $17.99 per vial and has received only one third of the order, the Director of the Maine Division of Disease Control contracted with that same distributor in June and July to purchase influenza vaccine at a cost of $39.00 per vial and received both shipments within two months; and Whereas distributors are in a unique position to make vaccines available first to facilities serving people at a high risk of developing complications from an influenza infection, such as nursing homes, hospitals, and doctors offices: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the private-sector distributors of the influenza vaccine should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that, during any shortage of the influenza vaccine, priority is given to distributing the available vaccine to those groups of people identified by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as being at a high risk of developing complications from an influenza infection.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) the dean of our delegation, for organizing this special order for our colleague, Henry B. Gonzalez. The United States lost a patriot; Texas lost a son; and I lost a mentor and a hero. Until today, I did not realize that he was a mentor for other people. When the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) told the story of Henry B. sitting down with him and working with him, I felt the same way more recently in 1993 and 1994. Texas has had many colorful and distinguished leaders. Some have reached the level of legend. In Henry B.'s work not only in Congress but in the Texas Senate and in Bexar County and San Antonio, his dedication to his constituents has placed him in that top category of a Texas legend. Myself and my family express our deep regret to the Gonzalez family in their loss and our loss as a Nation. I think a lot of us really need to talk about how Henry B. affected us individually. I had the same situation in 1993 and in early 1994. I was elected in 1992. I have some constituents in my district who actually were a part of the Henry B. Gonzalez campaign effort in the late 1950s. There are now still precinct judges, in Harris County, A.B. Olmos; and a number of people said, when you get to Washington as they supported me in 1992, you need to look up our friend Henry B. and follow Henry B. When I was elected and I sat down with Henry B. Gonzalez, and I almost see him sitting here in this chair because he always sat just to the right of where I am standing, I sat down and introduced myself because as serving 20 years in the Texas legislature, Henry B. did not come to Austin very often. I remember meeting him a couple of times. But I sat down with him and introduced myself and said, ``I'd like to work you. I'm not going to serve on the Banking Committee, but obviously I have some very close friends in Houston who are your longtime supporters.'' I would do that every few weeks and talk with him and see what was going on as a freshman Member. I had an opponent announce in December of 1993. Henry B. in January and February of 1994 said, ``By the way, I want to help you in your reelection. I'll do a radio tape or video or whatever.'' We never could set up the video and I always wanted him to come to Houston but he always passed on through and went back to San Antonio every weekend. Henry B. did that out of the graciousness of his heart, because he said, and I will remember these words, ``I like the way you handle yourself here on the House floor.'' That was like somebody who you respected as a hero putting their hand on your shoulder and giving you such a great compliment. Henry B. did that. His filibuster in the Texas Senate in the late 1950s against the segregationist bills again makes him part of legend. He is only one of two Members of Congress whose pictures hang in the Texas Senate. The other Member is the late Barbara Jordan whose picture, along with Henry B.'s, also hangs in the Chamber of the Texas Senate. Henry B.'s accomplishments and contributions are legendary. I think it is appropriate that we remember him and his leadership. Again as a Member from Houston-Harris County, we would not have the benefits we have with our homeless funding without Henry B. being chairman in 1993 and 1994 and helping us to this day receive recognition for our effort in our homeless funding. Mr. Speaker, last week, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez. The United States lost a patriot, Texas lost a son, and I lost a mentor and hero. Texas has had many colorful and distinguished leaders. Some have reached the level of legend. Henry B. Gonzalez's work in Congress and his dedication to his constituents place him at the top of this category. Myself and my family express our regret to the Gonzalez family on their loss. Congressman Gonzalez's distinguished 38-year congressional career demonstrated his deep commitment to public service and those in our society who had no one fighting on their behalf. Prior to his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1961, Henry B. Gonzalez served as a member of the San Antonio City Council, and as the city's mayor pro tem. He was subsequently elected to the Texas State Senate where he will always be remembered as a champion of the common people. He was revered for leading a 36-hour filibuster against legislation which sought to uphold and facilitate the principles of segregation. Henry B. Gonzalez held the floor for 22 hours and two minutes, finishing shoeless and exhausted, but victorious. He made such an impression on the Texas State Senate that his portrait hangs in the chamber in Austin. Only one other Member of Congress has ever had their portrait hung in the chamber, the late Barbara Jordan. Henry B. Gonzalez's greatest accomplishments in the U.S. Congress were in the area of affordable housing. He insisted on protecting the rights of low-income citizens, even though it was not popular. As chairman of the House Banking Committee, he led efforts to repair the savings and loans industry and helped stop the crisis from spreading to banks by overhauling the deposit insurance system. Throughout this service in Congress, Henry B. Gonzalez made it his mission to force the chief executive to justify any military action. In 1983, Congressman Gonzalez was the only Member calling for the withdraw of U.S. troops from Lebanon. He introduced a resolution to this affect and continue to speak out on this issue. Three days after his last statement on the subject, the Beirut bombing occurred. Democratic Members of the House are also well aware of Henry B.'s efforts on behalf of the Democratic Party. He was an articulate spokesman in Presidential politics since 1960, when he served as the national co-chairman of the ``Viva Kennedy'' campaign. I would like to extend my condolences to his family, especially to my colleague and friend Congressman Charlie Gonzalez. I am proud to have known Henry B. Gonzalez, and I consider my self fortunate to have served with him and to have called him my friend. Henry B. is a true Texas legend and a great American.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, November 13, I was unavoidably detained in my district and missed rollcall vote numbers 595 and 596. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted no on both rollcall vote 595 and 596.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are going to vote on the WRDA bill tomorrow. Why did we not vote on it in September or July or June? This Congress has been a do-nothing Congress. I am amazed. I have the Governor of my State going around the country saying he is going to bring Democrats and Republicans together, he is going to bring us together. I just wish he would bring the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans together, because here we had an agreement to leave. I do not like to have lame-duck sessions. I want people who are elected and have to answer to the voters here. But now we are here to cast one vote, and tomorrow maybe one or two votes. I wish Governor Bush would get the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans together before they want to talk to us Democrats, and maybe we can get something done for the American people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 583. In addition, yesterday due to pressing business back in my district, I missed rollcall vote 591. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 583 and 591.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me follow my colleague. It is interesting though if our armed services are in such bad shape, they have received more funding every year, and it has passed overwhelmingly. In fact, we have a lot of appropriations bills that have not been sent to the President yet, but the Department of Defense was the first one and has had the big plus-up every year compared to other Federal agencies. Madam Speaker, after sitting here and listening to my colleagues this morning talk about it, I heard that the Department of Education could not be audited. Well, when is the last time the Department of Defense was audited successfully? Madam Speaker, I think that is a good topic for debate, but this House and this Senate and the President signed the Department of Defense appropriations bill, the first one, and it is there, and it passed overwhelmingly on both sides. So I do not think the United States is going to hell in a handbasket on the Department of Defense, because we make sure we try to provide that funding. Here we are October 30, and Congress is still in session, and we have heard my colleagues blame the President or blame different folks, Republicans. But it is interesting, because next Tuesday the voters all over the country will go to the polls and make some decisions. Now, they will look at lots of issues, but one of the ones I wanted to talk about this morning, one of the most major issues, is providing prescription drugs for our senior citizens under Medicare. Prescription drugs have always been a problem, not just for seniors, but for everyone. When those of us go buy pharmaceuticals for ourselves or our children, we realize how high the cost is. But it seems like in the last 3 years, it has gone up dramatically. I know senior citizens do not always have the choices we have. Sometimes, if we are working, we can earn more overtime, we can cut some other areas, we can actually increase our income. But seniors do not have that option. Seniors do not have that option, if they are required to take so many prescriptions and they just cannot go out and work more overtime. I was worried earlier this year, and I am glad the House passed it, that between 65 and 70, I was cosponsor of the bill, let seniors work for those years. I was worried that was only going to be our effort this session, let seniors be able to go out and work and pay for their prescription drugs that are not covered under Medicare. I know this is my fourth term and in 1993, 1994 and 1995 at our town hall meetings and community meetings, we have dozens every year, we would have one or two people come up and talk about prescription drugs. But in the last 2 or 3 years, it seems like I cannot have a town hall meeting or community meeting without either a senior citizen or someone my age saying, my parents cannot afford it, or even someone my children's age saying, my grandparents cannot afford their prescription drugs. So, you know, in the early nineties you would only hear one or two, but in the last 2 or 3 years, because it seems like the cost of escalation has been so much, and it hits seniors so much more than it does anyone else. We asked 2 years ago, and our Committee on Government Reform staff, the minority staff, actually conducted studies around the country for a lot of members of Congress. One of them they did in my own district in Houston, and we did three of them starting about 2 years ago. One, we compared prices for large purchasers, for example, whether it is Blue Cross-Blue Shield or the Veterans, what can they do if the average citizen goes down compared to what the larger purchaser can do. We found out the large purchasers actually save about half of what my seniors going to their local drugstore would pay as compared if they could get it through some large purchaser. We also, because I am in Houston, Texas, and it is a 6\1/2\ hour drive to Mexico, what it would be for seniors who can drive to Mexico, who can both lower their prices by bulk purchasing, but they have also price controls. So we found out that people can drive from Houston to Mexico and save half, at least, on their prescription drugs. These are studies conducted not by my office, but by the minority office of the Committee on Government Reform. So, again, seniors could save half. The last thing we did this last spring is we picked out certain pharmaceuticals that are also used for animals. I remember very well in East End Houston at the magnolia Multipurpose Center, we had a good crowd of seniors there, and we had a young lady, I guess in her early 20's, and she had a beautiful German shepherd. She had that dog, and we started listing pharmaceuticals that my seniors in Houston take, like seniors all over the country, and animals take. Well, it just so happened this dog, this German shepherd, also had asthma, and so did one of my seniors. She talked about how it was tough. I looked at that dog and I thought it was a purebred German shepherd, Madam Speaker, but it turned out she got it real cheap at the SPCA, and it was a beautiful animal. But this senior citizen came up and said, I know this dog has asthma, and this is what I pay for my asthma medicine, and it was outrageous. Again, it was more than double for seniors as compared to what we do for our own animals. That is why it was frustrating that this House has not addressed it, except for one bill that passed earlier. We compare the House plan and the Democratic plan and Governor Bush's plan and the House plan, and it just looks like it is giving more money to insurance companies who, under our current HMO system are not even covering seniors. Madam Speaker, I know next Tuesday a lot of people, no matter what their age, will go to the polls. I know prescription drugs are important, and I hope they look at the Democratic plan.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, October 29, 2000, I was unavoidably detained and missed two rollcall votes, Nos. 572 and 573. I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 572 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 573.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey and the Chair of our Democratic Task Force on Health Care for having this motion to instruct. In a way I agree with my colleague from Louisiana that this may not be the best way to get the attention of the HMOs that predominantly serve our seniors. But it is our only battle tonight. And hopefully there is another way we can get their attention instead of just throwing more money at it. HMOs only cover about 15 percent of our senior citizens. And yet, the bill we voted on last week would provide at least 40 percent and over 10 years 47 percent to HMOs for those 15 percent. Actually, in Houston, we have a little over 15 percent of our seniors who are served by an HMO. I have a similar problem that my colleague from New York has. In Houston, Texas, we are down to one HMO left and they are capped, because they do not have the network to be able to add more seniors to it. So, as of December 31, our seniors will not be able to have access to an HMO. Now, I am not real thrilled about HMOs to begin with. But let me tell my colleagues what happened in Houston, Texas. We at one time had four or five HMOs. But one big insurance company, and I will not name them because they have done this around the country, they bought up the other HMOs. They bought up NYLCare 65, Prudential. And then they served notice a little less than 6 months or maybe a little more than 6 months later that they are not going to serve the market. That is what HMOs are doing. That is our only way to do this is to make them stay in the market because they actually controlled over 65 percent of the market, and then they announced they are not going to serve it. That is not doing a service to my seniors in Houston any more than they are doing it to Long Island, and that is what is frustrating. The Medicare BBA provider bill last week actually gave 40 percent and then 47 percent. A lot of us voted against this bill simply because of that. We need to provide more for hospitals and for providers and for doctors and for home health care, you name it. But if we are going to provide more for HMOs, and I do not mind it, I voted for it last year in 1999 and I will vote for it again, but let us put some restrictions on them. Maybe not 3 years, but let us do something instead of just giving them a blank check and then they still will not serve the seniors in my district.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at midnight last night the House leadership came up with a Medicare corrections bill that reminds me of someone who can mess up a one-car funeral. At the end of September, the Committee on Commerce considered and passed a bipartisan bill that would restore funds for both Medicare and Medicaid programs. The bipartisan Committee on Commerce bill froze DSH payments so our hospitals could benefit. It established a minimum payment floor for community health centers. It delayed across-the-board cuts for home health care reimbursements and allowed States to provide CHIP coverage for legal immigrant children and pregnant women. It would have provided some more funding for HMOs. Our bill was a balanced bill. But what do we have now with this midnight concoction? We have a bill that is skewed to the HMOs. To give 47 percent of the money in this bill to HMOs that only serve 15 percent of our seniors does not help another senior, and it does not help them get any more HMO coverage either. It is frustrating. I have a county that the HMOs have bailed out except one. You know what we want? If they are going to get more money, they need to agree to cover seniors more than for one year and leave them stranded like they have in Harris County and Houston, Texas. We do not need to give a penny to them until they will agree to cover our seniors.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, American consumers are flocking to the Internet in unprecedented numbers seeking to transact business and tap the nearly limitless informational databases. The explosion in Internet usage, however, is not without problems. Unlike shopping in a mall or browsing through a library where individuals travel anonymously through the merchandise racks and library stacks, the Internet is increasing becoming less and less anonymous. Direct marketing firms are now trying to identify individuals as they surf the web to isolate where they visit and what they are viewing. While just knowing where individuals are traveling to on the Internet has some value it is the next step in data collection that is most disconcerting. Companies are now attempting to complete the step by attaching your personal information to your web site visits. It is this type of activity that has truly frightening implications because it lifts the veil of anonymity that consumers enjoy in the traditional bricks-and-mortar marketplace. Powerful computer programs have been developed that can compile personal information at a level and completeness usually associated with the knowledge of an immediate family member. For that reason, I have introduced H.R. 5430, the Consumer Online Protection Act of 2000. H.R. 5430 seeks to return some of the anonymity back to consumers while they are online by prohibiting the correlation of personal information to web visits. In addition, the legislation requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate rules specifying that all operators of a Web site or online service provide clear and conspicuous notice of their privacy policy in clear non- legalistic terms. H.R. 5430 also requires a Web site or online service to provide consumers with an opt-out to prevent the use of their personal information for any activity other then transactional. Finally, the privacy policy must clearly state how any collected information will be shared or transferred to an external company or third party. Taken in combination, these requirements will provide consumers with the knowledge and control they need to prevent the dissemination of personal information provided to an online entity. What I am seeking to prohibit is a third party creating a complete profile of individuals and families to sell or share without prior affirmative consent. While I understand that there are many differing approaches to the issue of Internet privacy, I believe this legislation addresses a critical component and I look forward to moving this legislation in the 107th Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the coach from Georgia for sending me in. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today. Except the problem I have is that we were supposed to be finished on October 3. This Congress has provided billions and billions of dollars for projects all over the country. And yet, what is holding us up? Education funding. I want to congratulate my Republican colleagues for saying, we will do something for school construction around the country. But what about smaller class sizes? Five years ago, when the Republicans took control, they wanted to eliminate the Department of Education. In fact, they have candidates all over the country saying that is what they want to do. They are willing to now, instead of abolishing it up here, they just want to transfer funds to private schools. Over 90 percent of our children get their education through public schools. Let us do not take the funds away from them. My children went to public schools. They graduated. They went to college. They had a great public education. My wife teaches math in a public high school in Houston, Texas. We have great public schools. But we do not do it by taking money away from them and sending dollars to private schools like my Republican colleagues want to do. We need smaller class sizes. We need help with buildings. We need to work with our local school boards and our State legislators to say, okay, what works in Texas, we can help and we will send them funds to do it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in support of this resolution. The Amber program is a great example of law enforcement, the local media and communities coming together to save lives. Today, our children face many obstacles and we need to do what ever we can to ensure their safety. In The Dallas-Fort Worth area Amber program has been successful in the recovery of abducted children. While we cannot prevent every child abduction, it is important for local communities to respond immediately to child abduction cases and reunite them with their parents as soon as possible. In my district, a young girl was abducted recently. The abductor took the girl on a bicycle to a nearby bus station and then boarded a bus to Florida. This all happened within 20 or 30 minutes. Had the Amber plan been implemented, media outlets would have been interrupted immediately to report a description of the abductor and the location where the abduction took place. This would have saved time and possibly prevented the abductor from getting on that bus to Florida with the child. Fortunately, the young girl was found safely. Unfortunately, it doesn't always end this way. Since last year, I have been working with law enforcement agencies in the Houston and Harris County area, and our local media, to establish a plan similar to the Amber program. The plan, which is still under development by the Amber Plan Subcommittee, should be operational by January 2001. It will be a cooperative public service effort between 36 law enforcement agencies in the five-county area Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Montgomery, and Waller counties and 40 local radio, television stations, cable systems. Chuck Wolf, Chairman of the Emergency Alert System and Mark McCoy, station manager of KTRH radio station in Houston have been instrumental in the development of this program. It is important to point out that in order to activate the Houston Regional Amber Plan strict criteria must be met. It has to go through a screening process before it is activated. Once it is activated, we have to make sure that the emergency alert message is sent quickly and is easy to understand--it can only be activated if it passes a screening process. Law enforcement, local media outlets, and communities will collaborate to make sure that the requirements are met and that the emergency alert is activated properly. However, we also need for the Federal Communications Commission to take part in this effort. Currently, broadcasters are limited by the types of codes they can use to describe the alert event. I urge the FCC to expand event codes that will specifically describe if it is an Amber Alert, hazardous and environmental disaster, or any other man made disaster. We must utilize our available technology effectively to protect our citizens and specially our children from all types of disasters and civil disturbances. I strongly support this resolution and urge other Members to encourage their communities to implement similar programs.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 12, I was unavoidably detained in my district and missed rollcall votes 527 through 530. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 527, yes on rollcall vote 528, no on rollcall vote 529, and yes on rollcall vote 530. And, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 19, I was also unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 540. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted aye on rollcall vote 540.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted a one minute at an unusual time of the day because this House has passed one of the strongest HMO reform bills that I have seen. We passed it over a year ago, and yet this bill still languishes in its House-Senate conference committee. Obviously we need more effort to make sure that we pass a national HMO reform bill. This issue is important to the voters, and it has been, and that is why when I listened to the presidential debates last night, I heard it come up a number of times, how we needed a strong managed care reform or HMO reform bill. Let me set the record straight: the Texas legislature passed a bill in 1995 that was a strong HMO reform bill. In 1995, the Texas legislature passed a strong HMO reform bill. It was vetoed by Governor Bush. In 1997, they passed another bill that became law without his signature. Last night, listening to the debates, you would have thought there had been a lot of exercise in leadership on HMO reform in the Governor's office in Texas. What we need is strong leadership in the White House for an HMO reform bill, because it does not look like it is going to happen this year. So next year we will need it. Our bill, the Dingell-Norwood bill, was actually patterned after the Texas law of 1997. So, just like you want to hear the rest of the story, the whole point is that we need strong HMO reform legislation, it needs to pass the House and the Senate, and it needs to have the aggressive activity from a chief executive in the President of the United States. I would hope that the people would realize for the record who is embellishing their record now.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the brave young men from Texas who died in last week's attack against the U.S.S. Cole--Ronchester M. Santiago of Kingsville, Timothy L. Gauna of Rice, and Gary G. Swenchonis, Jr. of Rockport. These young men, none older than 26, were pillars of their communities who joined the U.S. Navy to serve their country and protect our national security. Specialist Third Class Santiago, a cook aboard the Cole, was remembered as an excellent student and well-respected by his peers. Seaman Gauna, an information systems technician, was a standout on his high school basketball and baseball teams. He also served as a bilingual teacher's aide at a local elementary school after graduation, before joining the Navy. Fireman Swenchonis, who had not joined the Navy until January 1999, was remembered as a good student, always willing to volunteer or lend a helping hand. They are just three of the 17 sailors killed or presumed dead in this despicable act of terrorism. Our sympathies are with the families of those sailors, along with the families of the injured, including Kesha Stidham of Austin, who lies in critical condition. As the Navy continues to recover its dead, the FBI, along with military and Yemeni authorities, are working around the clock to find those who are responsible. I congratulate them on their quick work so far and hope that additional leads and arrests will be forthcoming. Let those who conceived this brutal act, however, heed our words. America will not stand idly by as her young men and women are slaughtered by cowardly men in cowardly acts. You will be found, you will be brought to justice, and you will be punished. Mr. Speaker, our resolve will not be affected by this attack. The United States will continue to work for peace and stability to the Middle East, and we will continue to oppose those who seek to deal in the currency of violence and terror.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the public schools in our country. I know that should not be a major statement, but after hearing all of what people want to do with vouchers and everything else, maybe we need to have an affirmative affirmation that says, yes, we support our public schools in our country. Some of the key priorities for our public schools are class size reduction, school modernization, and technology improvements of both our elementary and our secondary schools. We need to fund the President's plans for school modernization and class size reduction, to ensure that our most valuable national resource, our children, will not continue to suffer from substandard school facilities and overcrowded classrooms. Studies by the National Center for Education Statistics show that, on the average, public schools in America are 42 years old. School buildings begin rapid deterioration after 40 years. Additionally, 30 percent of our schools were built before 1970 and have never been renovated. These schools are also lagging behind in our efforts to connect every classroom to the Internet. Only 42 percent of schools built before 1985 are connected to the Internet, compared to almost 60 percent of those built since. According to GAO's estimate, it would cost $112 billion to bring all our Nation's schools into good overall condition. In my home State of Texas, where my wife teaches algebra, we have over 4 million students in almost 7,000 schools. Of those schools, 76 percent of the Texas schools need repairs or upgrades just to reach the ``good'' condition; 46 percent need repairs to a building such as plumbing, electrical, heating or cooling systems; 60 percent have at least one environmental quality like air quality, ventilation, or lighting; and the student-to-computer ratio stands 11 to 1, 11 to 1 student-computer ratio. So one just has to wait one's turn for the use of that computer. The cost for this alone in Texas is estimated to be $10 billion to modernize school infrastructure and over $4 billion to address the technology needs. Aging schools, however, are not the only problem we have before us. We have to address the growing student population. Again, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, elementary and secondary school enrollment, already at a record-high 52.7 million, will climb to 54.3 million by 2008. Again, in Texas, we see similar trends. Our education system has stretched past a breaking point when one adds in the expected growth in the number of students. Over the next decade, the number of students in the elementary and secondary schools are expected to grow almost 8 percent in Texas alone, approximately 316,000 students. It is estimated almost 13,000 new classrooms will have to be built to handle this influx of new students. Voters in my own hometown in Houston are trying to address this problem. In a recent Houston ISD bond election, they approved $678 million to repair over 70 schools and to build 10 new ones. Fifty of the schools in HISD are over 50 years old. Twenty-five are over 70 years old. Much more is needed because they downsized it. Also, voters in the Aldine school district where my wife teaches just approved a $115.8 million bond package that would fund six new schools, a transportation center, and would provide upgrades for existing campuses. Aldine Independent School District is already feeling the impact of increased enrollment with the number of students having grown over 1,200 each year for the last 7 years. $678 million and $115 million sound like a lot of money, but it is really a drop in the bucket. School populations continue to increase, newer schools are beginning to show wear and tear; and facilities must be upgraded to keep our schools equipped with the cutting edge technology our children will need to be competitive in tomorrow's job market. These numbers show that it is absolutely vital that Congress address the conditions of our Nation's schools now because the situation will obviously get worse. Now, most of the school construction comes from, first, local money but also State money. But we need to make sure that we help what we can. Even if it is only a few pennies on the dollar, Mr. Speaker, we can help. That is the reason I support the President's plan to reduce the class size and build more classrooms. Additionally, I join my colleagues from around the country sponsoring legislation that will make tax credit bonds available to our schools, offer incentives for teachers who choose to teach at low-income or underserved areas and offer tax credits and student loan forgiveness for college students who choose to make teaching their profession. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important initiatives, and that we can work together and provide funding for our schools to educate our children. Our most important natural resource is the brains in our children that are being educated today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5164, the TREAD Act. This bill, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced by my friends on the Commerce Committee, Representatives Tauzin and Upton. I would like especially to thank Representative Tauzin, the Chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, for his willingness to work with our office on the two amendments, which were accepted. These amendments, which deal with keeping recalled and defective equipment out of the stream of commerce and the safety testing of vehicles, addressed key consumer safety issues and I am pleased they were included in this important legislation. Overall, this legislation will require companies to report foreign recalls to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within five days. In addition, manufacturers will now be required to contact NHTSA immediately if they begin to notice a significant number of injuries associated with their product. The legislation will also increase the civil penalties and add criminal penalties to better encourage those companies to err on the side of caution if there is a safety question. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will make our roads a safer place and it serves as a good starting point for when we take up the reauthorization of NHTSA next Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation will provide tough new financial penalties for safety violations and will lower the spill reporting threshold to five gallons as opposed to 50 barrels under existing law. In addition, the bill requires pipeline companies to implement stronger training and qualifications requirements for their personnel and strengthens the public ``right to know'' and ``whistle-blower'' protections for pipeline company employees. Each of these changes is designed to rebuild confidence in what has been one of the safest industries in the country. Unfortunately, no industry is perfect and the need for this legislation was highlighted by two recent pipeline explosions in Washington State and New Mexico. These two events have galvanized my belief that S. 2438 will move towards improving the industry safety record. Although I would still like to include other public safety protections, I understand the need for a pipeline safety bill this year is clear. I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce that I serve on but also in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure if necessary to move even stronger legislation next year. Pipelines have been shown to be a much safer way to transport products than trucks or other methods and the current bill increases that safety factor. I also want to point out what I believe should be the model pipeline in terms of safety. I, along with several of my Texas colleagues, have been working to secure Federal approval of a project called the Longhorn Pipeline. The Longhorn Pipeline begins at Galena Park, Texas, in east Harris County in the district I represent and goes across Texas for approximately 700 miles to El Paso, Texas. The Longhorn Mitigation Plan protects the environment and all the people along the pipeline route and is of a scope and rigor unprecedented in the pipeline industry. It includes measures designed to reduce the probability of a spill as well as measures designed to provide greater protection to the more sensitive areas, including areas where communities and drinking water supplies could be affected. Longhorn was willing to take extraordinary steps to protect the people living in close proximity to their pipeline and I believe they have set the industry standard. Mr. Speaker, transporting hazardous materials by pipeline is the safest and most economical way to deliver these products to market. S. 2438 will raise the bar of safety on our pipeline companies and punish those bad actors who operate on the margins of the safety envelope. Human lives and environmental quality are too important for us not to take action immediately.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Dreier and Congressman Joe Moakley for including my bill into the H-1B visa bill. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 developed a new filing fee which must be paid by employers when they file H-1B petitions for ``aliens in specialty occupations'' before October 1, 2001. Certain employers are exempt from paying the filing fee, including institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations or a Government research institute, it is my regret that this preferential treatment does not extend to grades K-12. With this in mind, elementary and secondary-level education institutions that qualify as nonprofit organizations under the appropriate sections of the Internal Revenue Code do not qualify as ``institutions of higher education,'' as defined by the ACWIA, and are thus not exempt. In response to this confusion, The Department of Labor has identified the need to clarify the definition of exemption provisions as they apply to elementary and secondary-level education institutions. We offered H.R. 1573 to ensure that the same policies and objectives served by the ACWIA be extended to include elementary and secondary- level education providers. The fee was paid by our public schools from property tax dollars to I.N.S. This bill will save our public schools scarce property tax funds to use for education. I hope we can pass this legislation that would provide our elementary and secondary schools a chance to hire experts and teachers through the H1-B Visa program and save local tax dollars.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before the end of the 106th Congress, I am hopeful to be able to pass a comprehensive pipeline safety bill. On September 7, the Senate unanimously passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This bill is tough and has many public safety provisions. For example, the daily penalty for a violation of regulations increases from $25,000 a day to $500,000 a day. In addition, pipeline companies must now report spills in excess of five gallons as opposed to 50 barrels or 2,100 gallons under current law. Other provisions in this bill require pipeline companies to have a detailed pipeline integrity plan as well as mandating stronger training and qualification requirements. The bill also strengthens the public's right to know and provides whistle-blower protections for pipeline employees. I believe this bill is a good start. Although I would still like to include other public safety protections, I understand the need for a pipeline safety bill this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Commerce that I serve on but also in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure if necessary to move even more legislation, stronger legislation next year. Pipelines have been shown to be a much safer way to transport products than trucks or other methods and the current bill increases that safety factor. I have also been working with several of my Texas colleagues and colleagues in the southwestern United States to secure Federal approval of a project called the Longhorn Pipeline. The Longhorn Pipeline begins at Galena Park, Texas, in east Harris County in the district I represent and goes across Texas for approximately 700 miles to El Paso, Texas. This pipeline is intended to carry refined petroleum production from Houston to southwest markets of the United States in El Paso and Midland/Odessa and hopefully beyond. After much delay, the Federal Government now seems to be willing to move forward in the process. George Frampton, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, has recommended the EPA and the Department of Transportation to include the analysis of the Longhorn Pipeline project by finishing the environmental assessment. The many studies and analyses conducted by the Federal Government indicate that the extensive mitigation plan supports this action. The Longhorn Mitigation Plan protects the environment and all the people along the pipeline route and is of a scope and rigor unprecedented in the pipeline industry. It includes measures designed to reduce the probability of a spill as well as measures designed to provide greater protection to the more sensitive areas, including areas where communities and drinking water could be affected. The Longhorn Pipeline meets or exceeds current statutory, regulatory and industry standards. The pipeline would be the safest in the history of the United States. I do not make this statement lightly. For instance, the mitigation measures are adjusted along the route of the pipeline based on the sensitivity of the area. The route was divided into approximately 8,000 segments, and the relative sensitivity at each segment was determined based on factors including the proximity to population centers, drinking water supplies, and protected species habitat. I cannot begin to understand why the Federal Government has taken this long, and to have made such a difficult process in the regulatory lag is amazing. We still have time to salvage the good intentions and still have the success that was started with this process. But we need to act now. I say we, the Federal Government. Since Longhorn filed for the pipeline conversion in 1997, two other previous crude-oil- conversion-to-refined-products pipelines are up and running. I repeat, they are up and running with not the mitigation measures that are part of this Longhorn Pipeline. If we are interested in pipeline safety, we need to encourage pipeline companies to establish mitigation measures such as these. Working together, we can ensure that pipelines remain a viable transportation means while maintaining and improving public safety.