Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of Aimee's Law legislation, and I rise in support of the bill, although I share the concern of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the bill should have come through committee and we should have had the committee process work. We see that happen too often here on this floor, whether it be the week before the July recess with prescription drugs or managed care reform, or anything. I think we are subverting the will of this House when we do not use the committee structure the way it is supposed to be, not just to conduct hearings, but also to have the committee's vote on this legislation. But be that as it may, I support this bill. The only crimes that are more heinous than murder and rape are those same crimes committed against children. I believe that individuals who commit violent or sexual crimes against children should spend the rest of their lives in prison. If, however, a State believes that such a criminal has been rehabilitated and decides to release this person back into society before the end of his prison term, then it should be held responsible if that person commits that crime again in someone else's neighborhood or someone else's State. Under Aimee's Laws, those States who are irresponsible and release violent criminals would pay to incarcerate these criminals in the other State. This is a fair and just approach, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, as a former State legislator for 20 years, I know the opposition to this bill, but I also know that the States need to make that decision so they do not export their problems to other States.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the reason this evening that I am asking for a 5-minute special order is to talk about some legislation that I have been working on and we have a great many cosponsors, H.R. 1323. As I begin to talk about it, Members need to understand when I first was brought to the problem's attention by some constituents of mine, I realized the first issue we need to deal with is what I call the candy effect, we need to get over the snicker factor and then really get on to dealing with the problems that some women in our country are having. H.R. 1323 deals with breast implants, an issue that has been the subject of court cases. But my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the Federal Food and Drug Administration, who is supposed to be America's watchdog, our protector, to make sure that we are not harmed by faulty drugs or medical devices. In fact, the FDA's own Web site calls itself the Nation's foremost consumer protection agency, and we pour millions and millions of Federal tax dollars into this agency every year. Unfortunately, when it comes to medical devices, the FDA is neither our watchdog nor our protector. In May, I was disappointed to learn that the FDA approved saline breast implants for the general market. The FDA approved these breast implants despite data presented by the manufacturers showing that three out of four mastectomy patients who opt for saline breast implant reconstruction experience painful local complications. The FDA approved breast implants despite the fact that the majority of implants rupture within the first 3 to 4 years. The FDA's own scientists concluded that the manufacturers have incorrectly carried out their statistical analyses and therefore determined that the complication rates were as high as 84 percent with mastectomy patients within the first 3 to 4 years. These complication rates continue to increase over time. But, now with the FDA approval, the two leading manufacturers are able to market their saline breast implants. In fact, one of the manufacturers even has a pending FDA criminal investigation regarding its breast implant production and testing hanging over its head, and it still received approval by the FDA. My concern for women who opt for a saline breast implant stems from hundreds of women who have contacted me with their experience, and I have heard from my own constituents and women from across the country who have suffered from the long-term consequences of reconstruction and cosmetic surgery, including infections, deformity and rupture. These women also have suffered from inaccurate mammogram readings due to implants concealing breast tissue which is critical in detecting a reoccurrence of cancer. Studies show that up to 35 percent of the breast tissue can be obscured by these implants. In addition, these women are experiencing difficulties with health insurance coverage to pay for the high cost of repeated surgeries and examinations. The cost of faulty implants is paid for by all of us. Just consider the number of women who have had breast implants. The Institute of Medicine estimated by 1997, 1.5 to 1.8 million American women had breast implants, with nearly one-third of these women being breast cancer survivors. The American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons cites breast augmentation as the most popular procedure for women ages 19 to 34. In 1998, nearly 80,000 women in this age bracket received breast implants for purely cosmetic reasons. By 1999, an additional 130,000 women received saline breast implants. In spite of these escalating numbers, very little is known about the long-term effects of the silicone of these breast implants on the body. Few patients understand that even when they opt for the saline breast implants, the envelope of the implant is made of the silicone. Following the FDA's decision to approve saline breast implants, the agency did warn women of the potential risk. FDA officials called upon implant manufacturers and plastic surgeons to ensure that thorough patient information is provided to women before they undergo the surgery. So, now with the FDA approval process behind us, the only course of action to safeguard future women is an informed consent document. Somehow, a piece of paper is supposed to make up for the manufacturer's insufficient mechanical testing, revision data and retrieval analysis. It is supposed to make up for inaccurate labeling and risk estimates. It is supposed to make up for the plastic surgeon's obligation to fully inform their patients of the potential complications and reoperations and the doctor's chosen surgical procedures. There is so much we don't know, and yet the one government agency mandated to safeguard the public's food, drug and medical devices is willing to jeopardize women with a medical device that has alarmingly high failure rights. In spite of the agency's call for post-market studies, the FDA approval of saline breast implants provides no incentive for the manufacturers to make data better or a safer medical device. I highly doubt the post-market studies will be conducted in a meaningful and timely manner, and I doubt that the FDA has the ability to properly oversee these studies anyway. One of the manufacturers is already predicting to its stockholders it will have FDA's approval of its silicone breast implants in a couple of years, and I believe the need for more research is especially compelling in light of the FDA's own study on the rupture of saline breast implants. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two articles from The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. On May 18 of this year, Dr. S. Lori Brown's research was presented. The study examined women through the use of MRIs in order to detect whether their implants had ruptured and concluded that 69 percent of the women had at least one ruptured breast implant. The FDA concluded that rupture of silicone breast implants is the primary concern although ``the relationship of free silicone to development or progression of disease is unknown.'' My colleagues have joined me in trying to get some critically needed independent research into silicone breast implants. We have sponsored ``The Silicone Breast Implant Research and Information Act,'' H.R. 1323, which calls upon the National Institutes of Health to conduct clinical research on women with silicone breast implants. Our bill places a special emphasis upon mastectomy women, who are adversely affected at a much higher rate than women receiving implants for cosmetic reasons. While that research is being conducted, the bill would also bolster the informed consent procedures and information given to women when they consider breast reconstructive surgery or breast augmentation. I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill, and ensuring the health and well-being of American women. Since the FDA won't do it's job, we'll have to. Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles from the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for the Record. [From the Washington Post, May 21, 2000] How Safe Is Safe? The Food and Drug Administration ruled last week that saline-filled breast implants, the only kind still available, can remain on the market. They had been in regulatory limbo; a 1976 law allowed medical devices then available to continue to be sold pending further testing, only now completed. But for those who hoped the long-awaited FDA ruling would give a firm yes or no on safety, the agency's judgment is less than definitive. Saline implants may be sold, the agency ruled, but women must be made aware of their many potential complications, including pain, infection, cosmetic problems and a 20 to 40 percent chance they will need replacing by another operation within three years. A serious effort needs to be mounted to warn women of these risks, the agency believes. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Why, then, approve at all? Critics accuse the FDA of diluting the meaning of its seal of approval. Many products legally on the market carry risks. Drugs commonly come with warnings of side effects. But the critics argue that the agency should take a harder line toward optional cosmetic products and procedures. And in fact, most optional devices with complication rates this high have been kept from the market. The FDA says it is trying to draw difficult lines between protecting people and allowing them to weigh their own risks at a time when both demand for ``lifestyle products'' like cosmetic surgery and the variety available are skyrocketing. Should people be protected from liposuction and laser eye surgery? From cosmetic procedures with a remote risk of serious harm but a high risk of moderate harm? The implant ruling reflects an FDA choice to become, at least for cosmetic surgery, less a goalie and more a disseminator of information. It's a defensible but risky approach that can only work if accompanied by close oversight, especially of the implant manufacturers and plastic surgeons who benefit financially from use of these products. For most consumers, the FDA's stamp of approval still speaks more loudly than any warnings it may tack on.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed one of the biggest legislative shams of the 106th Congress. This Congress did not pass a prescription drug benefit to help our seniors; we passed an insurance policy. From the Patient's Bill of Rights to education funding, my colleagues have used Democratic rhetoric to masquerade their bad ideas. They are using the same old strategy, watered-down legislation to ultimately secure its failure. We did not even get a vote on an alternative. The Republican bill costs seniors more each year, but it gives them less. It was either their way or the highway. Well, our seniors see through this sham, and maybe in November they will give them the highway. Today, I have seniors from my own district, from my home, visiting D.C. They are from the Magnolia Multipurpose Center in Houston. And I have to tell them that, yes, they now have a benefit; but only if their insurance policy decides to give it to them. And who knows how much it will cost. Mr. Speaker, we should be providing lifesaving pharmaceuticals to seniors, not an insurance policy. We should be providing a secure, stable and reliable benefit instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare. And we should be building up Medicare, not tearing it down. Our seniors deserve more than a voucher.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my Republican colleagues can get up the last couple of hours with a straight face and talk about their bipartisan bill. I rise in opposition to this prescription drug gimmick. It is not bipartisan. They even refused us an option to have a vote on an alternative plan. We should be putting the benefits in the hands of senior citizens and not in the hands of insurance companies. We should be providing a secure and reliable benefit instead of creating a new bureaucratic nightmare, a new Medigap policy for seniors to have to fight with. We should be building Medicare up and not tearing it down. The Republican bill is flawed. It gives seniors the right to buy an insurance policy. They want prescriptions. They do not want an insurance policy. It allows the insurance companies to limit the number of medications it covers. It restricts them from using their local pharmacy. The Republican bill does nothing but get them past the November elections, but our seniors who built this country, who fought in World War II and the Korean War, they know this is a trick, and they are not going to be fooled by it. The Republican bill costs seniors more each year and it gives them less. The deductibles can increase leaps and bounds. Our seniors deserve more than a voucher. We know this bill is bad for seniors. That is because it is supported by the pharmaceutical companies who are already charging them millions more than they should.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially for his advice. Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of dollars in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the Federal taxpayers of the United States. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the port and of the City of Houston. In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year. Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of our ranking member's amendment. As the House considers this important amendment, I wanted to bring to Members' attention just one of the success stories of our space program. For the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to meet with and get to know an outstanding scientist and an astronaut in Houston, Texas. Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz has accompanied me to six of my middle schools in my district to talk about the need for students to take more math and science classes. I have also had the opportunity to visit Dr. Chang-Diaz in his plasma jet propulsion laboratory at Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston. Dr. Chang-Diaz is obviously a man of many talents. He is a veteran astronaut with six space flights and has logged over 1,269 hours; but even more so, he is a scientist and he is developing the new, and forgive me if I mispronounce it, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket concept called VASIMR. The VASIMR prototype rocket engine is designed to shorten the trip to Mars, or anywhere else, and provide a safer environment for the crew. Dr. Chang-Diaz has been working with the scientists throughout NASA and the Department of Energy to develop this process today, and he has been able to secure funds to keep the project going. However, this project is just too important just to allow it to survive. While I do not make a specific request, Mr. Speaker, I hope in the future for assistance to fund the development of the VASIMR prototype rocket engine, and the ranking member's amendment will go far in that direction.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to oppose the Roemer amendment one more time. I sometimes think like Yogi Berra that it is deja vu all over again. Or maybe like the movie Ground Hog Day, every year we keep experiencing the same thing. I join my colleague from Texas in saying that the gentleman from Indiana is a great person with a bad amendment. Again, the International Space Station represents the future of our space exploration. It will be a high-tech laboratory with innovations. It will have countless applications to the daily lives of Americans. It represents an era of international cooperation from which everyone will benefit. If Congress does undermine the funding for the International Space Station by passing this amendment, it will represent a major reversal in the commitment made to the program's stability over the years. It will be a betrayal to our international partners. Among the criticisms are that the cost for the life cycle of the Space Station has dramatically risen over the years. In fact, the cost for the life cycle of the Space Station has gone up only 2 percent in the last 3 years. Critics have charged that the funding for the Space Station will push out smaller space exploration endeavors, like Mars Pathfinder and Hubbell. That is just simply not true. We will use this platform for those.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is unusual that I follow my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), because the gentleman and I normally are of the same mind. Maybe the river that separates Texas and Louisiana might have more than that. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to increase funding for a number of important satisfactory veterans programs, I cannot support the way in which they are going about obtaining the funding. To pay for these worthwhile programs, the amendment seeks to transfer funds from the Human Space Flight account of NASA and also NASA Science, Aeronautics and Technology. While the contribution of our veterans to the greatness of our Nation should never be forgotten, and while we fulfill our special obligations to care for those who fought for these freedoms that we enjoy and sometimes we take for granted, this amendment is not right the way it goes. In fact, my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who has fought many years not only in the State legislature, but now here in Congress for veterans nursing homes, tells me that Texas will not benefit from this plus-up yet with the cuts from NASA. The men and women at NASA run an exceptional government agency that has always done innovative work with limited funds that Congress appropriates. They have been leaders in cutting expenses and making their agency more financially streamlined and we should recognize that. If anything, I fear that perhaps they carried their zeal for faster, cheaper, better, a step too far. With the recent high-profile setbacks, particularly in the Mars missions, I think we need to prod NASA in the other direction, to ensure that in their efforts to do more with less that they have not sacrificed safety to save money. Again, this amendment has benefit but not in this area. NASA is a fine example of an effective agency. If we wish to have the world's preeminent space program, we must work to fund it, not to cut their budget. Our space program is the envy of the world. Despite recent stumbles, NASA continues to expand the frontiers of knowledge and probe the vast unknown reaches of outerspace. Space exploration will play a critical role in our Nation's future both for technology development and for health care, and we need to push for the development of these new technologies. It will push our children, our students, to learn more math and science; and we need to make sure that responsible agencies like NASA have the necessary funds to carry out their mission and to continue to provide us with the invaluable source of innovation and information. I support veterans nationwide, but I also want to make sure our Texas veterans can benefit. Again, this amendment does not go that far, and so I would hope in their effort to support veterans nationwide that we would come up with an amendment that not only would not cut NASA, but would help veterans in all 50 states instead of 49 of them and not just punish the ones in Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen-Meehan amendment. Tobacco use is responsible for 430,000 premature deaths each year. Smoking kills by causing chronic lung disease, coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth and bladder. Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United States, Mr. Chairman. It causes one out of every five deaths. In fact, tobacco use causes twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Tobacco causes twice the number of deaths of all of those diseases and accidents combined. If current trends continue, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses, including an estimated 5 million children. Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal taxpayer approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid. To have a provision that prohibits the Veterans Administration from transferring funds to the Justice Department to support litigation against the tobacco companies is wrong, and I would hope this Congress would be able to stand up and say, no, we want to be able to have some repayment for the diseases and illness that our veterans have been afflicted by. The Medicare program pays approximately $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays in excess of $1 billion per year. The Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion per year. The Indian Health Services pays $300 million a year. In addition, tobacco-related health costs the Medicaid program nearly $17 billion a year, of which Federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. Overall public and private payments for tobacco-related care totaled nearly $90 billion in 1997. Mr. Chairman, to remove VA appropriations for the tobacco litigation hurts our veterans. It is our duty to provide as many dollars as possible for our vets, especially since our government encouraged tobacco use and tobacco addiction by our young service personnel, not only during World War II but during the Korean War. Mr. Chairman, I am reading a book now about the Chosin Reservoirs and the heroes of that Korean War, particularly the Chosin Reservoir, and instance after instance, when the temperature, was well below zero, oftentimes the only thing they had were cigarettes. Those cigarettes were provided by our government. Those Korean War veterans are up in years. We should be able to provide for them to be treated in our VA hospitals, and, again, not just by the dollars we appropriate, but by the dollars that we can generate from litigation because of their addiction and the diseases that they have because of that. Again, this amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans, and AMVETS; and I think, Mr. Chairman, particularly this year, less than 2 weeks ago, we talked about it at our Memorial Day services all over the country, in recognizing our veterans' contribution that in this year, particularly, since we are recognizing Korean War veterans that the Waxman-Hansen- Meehan amendment should be adopted, and we should remove this provision. I would hope that no matter what appropriations bill we come to, that we would not tie the hands of the Justice Department to say, no, we need to have tobacco-related lawsuits. Again, it is not our decision it, is up to the judges or the juries ultimately; but it would allow for us to recoup that money to be able to again treat more veterans for hopefully other illnesses that are not tobacco related and thereby provide it back to the veterans' program next year and the year after.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes numbers 285 through 291. Had I been present, I would have voted present on rollcall 285, yes on rollcall 286, yes on recall 287, no on rollcall 288, no on rollcall 289, yes on rollcall 290 and no on rollcall 291.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the committee, for their yeomen's efforts on this bill. Our signature is our word. It binds all agreements. The signatures of our forefathers freed our country. Today, in many respects, we are going to free the American consumer. The legislation before us today will allow an electronic signature to replace a written signature for many business transactions. The electronic signature, in many instances, will speed transactions between consumers and businesses across States and across nations. Not having to sign and mail important documents does come, however, at a price. As a member of the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, I supported ensuring that consumers are protected from the fraudulent use of their name. To this end, a balanced disclosure policy that allows consumers the choice of receiving important documents either on paper or electronically has been incorporated in this legislation. While there are a great many people in this country that are computer literate, there are those that are more comfortable in signing their names to paper. This bill accommodates those people. I also want to point out that not all documents are eligible for the electronic signature. Wills, court orders, foreclosures, termination of health benefits are just examples of the documents that must be delivered and signed directly by the consumer. This legislation will continue our progress into the new digital millennium, and I am pleased the conference committee produced this solid bipartisan legislation that helps and protects the American consumers. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation, and again I thank the chairman of the committee and also our ranking member for their efforts on this.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his efforts on the committee, and, again, I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the efforts and the commitment to try and have more money during conference process.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding. I see our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) from Chicago, and knowing that both Houston and Chicago, 44 percent of our children are either getting more or less the immunizations they need. I know in my own district in Houston, our population turns so quick, that we may do a great immunization program 2 or 3 years ago, but we have so many new children who are coming in to urban areas in our country that this money, this infrastructure money will help create a registry so we will know that a child does not overimmunize or hopefully not underimmunize, and we will get those immunizations and the registry will help the States. I know the State of Texas is supporting this, and State health commissioners and, of course, our cities to provide that registry so we will spend a dime today and save us a dollar tomorrow.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for bringing this amendment up because, not that I disagree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), because there are some increases in this legislation, the problem is that when we see the need that we have, the increases that they have are still not meeting the needs of our communities. This is a great example of this one little amendment talking for $1,000 increase in child care grants that talk about where our priorities are here on this House floor. I am not faulting the Committee on Appropriations. I understand they have the rules they live by. We gave them those rules with the budget resolution that had the wrong priorities, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is here is to talk about child care, and I will go into that. But let us talk about some of the other priorities that our appropriations process is leaving out, again not to fault the members of the committee or the chairman, because they are doing the best they can with the guidelines that we gave them. Expanded educational opportunity. Trying to fix the infrastructure of our schools in our country. Prescription drugs for seniors may be a part of this, we do not know. Expanded health care for our children. Congress made an effort in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act, for the CHIPs program. We still have a long way to go. Following the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the Head Start, granted there is more funding in this appropriations bill for Head Start, but it still falls very short of the need in my own district in Houston, Texas, and I am sure everywhere else in the country. There are so many children who are Head Start qualified that the money is not there because we are not willing to put our money where our mouth is. That is just to talk about a few of the human needs, Mr. Chairman. Let us talk about other issues that we need to address: defense of our Nation, protection of our borders, continue to see our crime rate drop needs to continue the community policing that we hopefully will see in the appropriations bills that come. The problem is our priorities are wrong. We spent last Friday talking about an estate tax cut which only benefits 2 percent of the people in this country, and then the amendments rejected that will take that down to 1 percent. So that is why our priorities are wrong. That is what is wrong. That is why I am glad our ranking member came up with this amendment that talks about the new investment in child care that is needed. States now cannot keep up with the need of child care assistance even with our TANF funds, and I know that from my own experience again in Texas. Most eligible children are denied assistance. Nationally, only one out of 10 children who are eligible for child care assistance under Federal law receives any help. No State is currently serving all eligible families with child care. States have severely limited access to assistance. Only five States set their income eligibility guidelines at the maximum allowable under Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income. In nearly half the States, 24 States, a family earning $25,000 a year does not qualify. In three States, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, a family of three earning $18,000, 130 percent of poverty cannot qualify for help. Even with low eligibility cut-offs, States have long waiting lists. California has 200,000 families that are waiting. In Texas, we have 36,000 families that are waiting for child care assistance. That is why this amendment is so important. It gives us the opportunity to talk about our priorities. We need to put our priorities in the needs of our country, because those children that need that child care, Mr. Chairman, those are the ones hopefully that will be serving here someday. We need to prepare them for that. All of us were prepared when we were growing up. Today's children need even extra help with what we do, whether it is child care, whether it is Head Start, whether it is quality education. Again, most of the funding comes from the local level, but we can help our local communities and provide assistance and smaller class sizes and building reconstruction. The limited resources lead to inadequate policies and force parents to have to make really difficult choices. Assistance policies keep quality care out of the reach of low-income children. Nearly one-third of our States are paying rates based on out-of-date market surveys, making it unaffordable for programs serving low-income children that invest in quality. When one thinks about it, despite expert recommendations, over a third of our States, of our parents, pay 10 percent of their income. When one says 10 percent, that does not sound like much. But if one has a poor family, how much of that is housing? How much of that is health care? How much of that is utilities? How much of that is transportation hopefully to get to that job from the welfare reform bill that we passed on this floor. Basic health and safety protections are lacking in many States. Only 10 States meet the national recommendation for child-staff ratios in their licensing requirements. And only 10 States require all family child care providers to meet any requirements and regulations.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again, section 317 funding increase is supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and this increase is also supported by the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Every Child by Two, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, and the Association of County and City Health Officials. Most important, an increase in the 317 funds, Mr. Chairman, is supported by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Again, I want to thank the chairman for his support; and hopefully in conference committee we will get that additional funding if we can see the allocations increase.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for organizing this colloquy this evening. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your pledge to work to increase funding for section 317, the immunization program. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have introduced the resolution calling for an increase in section 317 funds for children's immunizations, and I am pleased that thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), this year's Labor, HHS bill does include a slight increase in section 317 funding. However, much more is needed. While immunization rates in most States are improving, we are not doing as much as we could do if one of four American children are not receiving the immunizations that he or she needs. In Houston, which I represent, and Chicago over 44 percent of the children are not getting one or more of the immunizations. Section 317 infrastructure funds are used by the States and cities to identify needs, conduct community outreach, establish registries, open clinics, deal with disease outbreaks, and undertake educational and tracking efforts, among other things. These infrastructure funds have been reduced rather dramatically, as my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), mentioned in the past 5 years from 271 million to 139 million. The need for increased infrastructure funding is particularly important in light of the recent Journal of the American Medical Association survey that shows over 50 percent of American children are either under or overvaccinated. The JAMA study shows that 21 percent of toddlers receive at least one extra immunization, while 31 percent missed at least one. In other words, close to 50 percent of American children are receiving too few or too many vaccinations.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and see a bill that would do little for the educational system of our country. This is a result of the budget that the Republican majority has given us. It emphasizes cutting taxes, but it hurts the future of our Nation. This bill does not provide for the President's plan for school modernization, and ensures our children will continue to suffer from substandard school facilities. In my home State of Texas, where my wife teaches high school algebra, we have 4 million students in almost 7,000 schools. Of these schools, 76 percent need repairs or upgrades to reach good condition; 46 percent need repairs in building features such as plumbing, electrical, heating, or cooling; 60 percent have at least one environmental problem, air quality, ventilation, or lighting; and the student ratio to computers stands at 11 to 1. Over the next decade it will get worse, not only in Texas but across the country. Over the next decade, the number of Texas students in elementary and secondary schools will increase by 8 percent. What we need to do is not underfund $1 billion in teacher quality improvement and recruiting, as this bill does, cut 40 percent of after- school programs, underfund Head Start. We need to provide for the future of our Nation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that, here in the world's richest country, one in seven American children does not have health insurance. Yet, in the midst of our Nation's longest and strongest economic expansion, the health of over 11 million of our children is being jeopardized. In the Houston region, over a quarter million children are uninsured. In my Congressional district, at least 70% of children in the Aldine Independent School District rely on the school nurse for primary healthcare services or as their initial healthcare provider. Our children deserve better. Congress created Medicaid, and later the new Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to offer coverage for low-income children. These two programs are an investment in good health--an investment that pays dividends in the long term because prevention saves taxpayers money. They have reduced the percentage of uninsured children and parents in the United States. And, they have increased access to quality health care services. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 40 million individuals--mostly women, children, and adolescents--at an annual cost of about $154 billion in combined federal and state funds. Eligibility for Medicaid is determined by each state according to its specific guidelines. States have wide discrepancy in determining what optional benefits will be given, who will be eligible for those benefits and the procedure used to grant the benefits. While Medicaid has benefited the poorest of the poor, it has not been able to address a second group of uninsured--the working poor. In 1997, Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program or CHIP, which made available approximately $48 billion in federal funds over ten years to help states expand health insurance coverage to low- income children and youth. Federal law permits states to use CHIP funds to expand coverage in three ways: through Medicaid expansions; state-designed, non-Medicaid programs; or a combination of these two approaches. CHIP, funded with federal block grant dollars and state matching dollars, is a health insurance program for children in families who make too much money for Medicaid, but who cannot afford other private insurance options. CHIP has extended coverage to an additional 2 million children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Yet millions of children are believed to be eligible for these programs, but remain uninsured. Uninsured children will benefit from Medicaid and CHIP only if the states in which they live chose to extend eligibility and if states then work to enroll them. States currently cover children whose family incomes range generally from below the Federal poverty level (FPL) to as high as 300% of poverty. While some states moved very quickly to insure low-income children, Texas did not. In the first year in which funds were available, the State of Texas expanded Medicaid coverage for children at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. This resulted in 58,286 children ages 15-18 having insurance. More than 102,000 remained uninsured, even though they were eligible for coverage under the old federal Medicaid rules. This was a very slow start. However, thanks to the efforts of the Texas Legislature during the 76th Legislative Session, our state is making progress. Because of the efforts of Senator John Whitmore and Representative Kevin Bailey, Texas created a separate children's health insurance program for children at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. This will provide health insurance for 500,124 Texas children through age 18. In my region, this means 90,802 children will have health insurance. While this is a good development, we still have a long way to go. Other states are further along in providing health coverage for children. In the first year of the program, Texas expanded coverage for 58,286 children. By comparison, Alabama enrolled 38,980 children; California enrolled 222,351 children; Florida enrolled 154,594 children; Georgia enrolled 47,581 children; Massachusetts enrolled 67,852 children; Missouri enrolled 49,529 children; New Jersey enrolled 75,652 children; New York 521,301 children; North Carolina enrolled 57,300 children; Ohio enrolled 83,688 children; and South Carolina enrolled 45,737 children. Of the states that chose to create a separate children's health program, many are extending coverage to more children than is Texas, including California at 250 percent; Connecticut at 300 percent; New Jersey at 350 percent; Vermont at 300 percent; and Washington at 250 percent. Texas can do more. And we should do more. We have the highest rate of uninsured persons in the country. And, Texas has the second highest rate of uninsured children in the nation. Over 41% of parents of eligible uninsured children postponed seeking medical care for their child because they could not afford it. There are 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas--600,000 are eligible for, but not in Medicaid; nearly 500,000 qualify for CHIP. Texas covers children whose family incomes range from below the federal poverty level to 200% of the federal poverty level. Yet the Federal government allows coverage to children as high as 300%. Texas, like the rest of the nation, could do more to conduct an aggressive outreach to ensure that eligible children receive the services they need. New outreach is clearly needed--now, more than ever. Like many states, after federal welfare reform was enacted in 1996, we saw a huge drop in the number of persons applying for and participating in Medicaid. 193,400 Texas children fell off the Medicaid rolls during the past three years, a 14.2% decline. Because these two programs are no longer linked, many lower-income persons do not realize that they are eligible for health insurance. Unfortunately, Texas is the worst state in the Nation in terms of retaining low-income kids on Medicaid. And, a recent New York Times article shows that Texas has used none of the federal funds it is entitled to for outreach. We can do better. Why are so many persons not receiving the Medicaid and CHIP services they're entitled to? Red tape burdens the neediest families in Texas. Medicaid program eligibility requirements in Texas include: A Face-to-face interview An Asset test No continuous eligibility--families must periodically re-enroll No presumptive eligibility--even if families have proven that they are eligible for another program with the same income guidelines, they must go seven states (Texas included) expanded coverage to only 100 percent of the as quickly as possible implement changes in Children's Medicaid eligibility. Texas can take steps now to reduce it's state government bureaucracy. For example, the state could: Eliminate the assets test for children's Medicaid. Texas now makes parents of Medicaid-eligible children document not just income, but also the value of savings, IRAs, automobiles, and valuables. The test is not required by federal law, and 40 states plus the District to Columbia have already dropped it for children. Texas could also drop the requirement for face-to-face application/ recertification interviews for children's Medicaid and allow mail-in applications. Thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia allow mail-in application for children. Three states also allow community-based enrollment outside the welfare office. Texas could adopt for children's Medicaid the same simple, flexible documentation and verification options used for Texas CHIP. To make a joint mail-in application feasible, children's Medicaid and CHIP must accept the same documents for income and other required verifications. Federal law allows states to reduce income documentation for children's Medicaid in any way, or even to eliminate it in favor of using third-party verification. Seven states require no income documentation for children's Medicaid. The state could adopt 12-month continuous eligibility for children's Medicaid. Children enrolled in Texas CHIP stay enrolled for 12 months, regardless of any changes in income during that period. In Texas Medicaid, parents must report any income change within 10 days, and Medicaid is cut off the next month if the new family income is too high for Medicaid. Texas could also adopt twelve-month eligibility for Children's Medicaid--this continuous eligibility is a state option Congress created when it passed CHIP. Fifteen states have adopted continuous eligibility for Children's Medicaid, and Ohio will begin the policy in July 2000. Hopefully, my colleagues in the state legislature will consider some of these ideas as they continue their push to expand health care to the uninsured. Thanks to their efforts, Texas has done many good things in the past year to reduce the number of uninsured children. We can certainly do more. I am hopeful that successful state partnerships like Medicaid and CHIP will be used by the state to their full potential.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, the original Democrat sponsor of this bill, for yielding me time. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, I am proud to not only support it, but also be a cosponsor. It adds $6 billion annually to our bills and about $2.00 a month to our constituents' phone bills. While this tax was created to fund the Spanish-American War and has been reinstituted during different conflicts, telephones were a luxury. Well, that is not the case anymore. In fact, it has long since not been a luxury. So this regressive tax should be repealed. This is a broad tax cut that I think a lot of us can support, and that is why you have a broad number of Members that are cosponsoring it. It covers everyone, but particularly it covers senior citizens in my own district who can see when their bill comes in after this is effective, their Federal tax will be reduced. I do share with my colleague from Wisconsin the concern about whether their regular phone bill will be increased, but hopefully they will deal with their State legislature and their regulation on that. The only funds that should be collected from the telecommunications device should be the digital divide. I am also glad we are having a motion to recommit to close the 527 loophole that requires 527s to be able to list who is giving to them and how they are spending their money.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleagues on the Republican side are extolling us Democrats to support our President, yet for 7\1/2\ years I would have thought, to hear them, that he is the devil himself. For the last few months, however, they are saying they agree with him. I rise in opposition to permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. Over the last few months, I have felt that the progress of China on both the social and economic front have evaporated compared to when I was there and what I saw 2 years ago. I see a Chinese retrenchment, I see a clamping down more on social and religious freedom, continuing threats on Taiwan, and again not opening their markets as easily as they should have, until now that we have this big treaty. I think we need to look at their record on religious and social freedoms and their record on Taiwan. Each year I have supported granting normal trade relations with China, and even last year, even though Beijing condoned the stoning of the U.S. embassy. I think we should be concerned when a superpower is willing to reach that level to advance their foreign policy initiatives. China is a great country. Cultural wonders and discoveries by this great nation have benefited mankind for many years, and the people of China should continue to express their individual initiative. But we cannot overlook the tool of moderation that Congress has been able to use by looking at this every year. I want our business communities to have every opportunity possible to sell their products, but not our industries, to China. However, this desire is not strong enough to overlook the continuing problems China is experiencing as it tries to transition to a free market economy. How will China employ the millions of displaced workers moving from their cities in search of jobs? Will they move the production from our country to theirs? William Jennings Bryan said that ``American principles are above price; American values are not bought and sold.'' And what he was really saying is that Americans should value our basic freedoms of individual liberty, religious freedom, and freedom of speech. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote against this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in kind of a unique position on this issue, one, because 10 years ago, I was at the same place my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is in; I was a State senator, and Metro in Houston was proposing a heavy rail system that would take so many dollars into such a small geographic and community area for the service. And it would have meant that the rest of our area, including the Congressional district that I have now, and my State Senate district at that time, would not have had revenue for either expansion of the bus or even heavy, light rail or anything at that time. And as the State senator, I introduced a bill opposing it, and along with some other colleagues from Houston of mine, who is currently still in the legislature, because we needed to get the attention of the local community, because they were not being responsive. And as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) said, it was not so much support for it as it was at least along a corridor that wanted it at that time. But I have watched the Houston Metro over the last 10 years, and with the help of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to where they have literally the state-of-the-art bus system, the park-and-rides in the country. And it would not have been done for this last 10 years without the support of this Congress. I also noticed over the last few years in watching these other cities, and granted, we cannot compare Houston to someone in Kansas or even Pittsburgh, because Houston is the 4th largest city in the country. And I say that all the time, because I think a lot of people think, well, wait a minute, why does Houston need this; the fourth largest city, New York, Chicago, LA, and then Houston. If we look at the top 10 cities in the country, every one of them are looking at, planning, or having in place some type of rail system. And, again, if this were a heavy rail, I would oppose it, because I do not think that is possible in Houston. I do not think we can do that, it costs too much. But I think a light rail, particularly this proposal that serves a central business district, the University of Houston downtown that has grown in the last 10 years, to be such an educational facility, to serve the south part of the City of Houston around the Astrodome complex which is also in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen); this is not in my district. I represent still the north and east part of Houston. But I can see that this would be a benefit to the whole community; one, because we have clean air problems. We need to look at every alternative, more than just buses and rubber tires. We need to look at every alternative. I have seen the success of Enron Field this year, the state-of-the- art baseball stadium, the number of people. I used to think Houstonians would not get out of their cars and take a bus, much less a train, because so many of us have so many cars. Some of them do not run, but we still have the cars. I watched as people will take the park and rides down to a baseball game in the evenings and the growth in the park-and-rides for the central business district. And that is why I think just the reprogramming of this money is something important. Now, I cannot fault my colleague from Sugar Land for what he is doing, because, and he knows, having been in the legislature, I oftentimes tried to provide guidance to my local elected officials, because this was tax money that we have to vote on here on this floor, and so I do not fault that. In fact, even though, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), we probably only vote together about 20 percent of the time, believe me, the gentleman is a good friend for many years, a personal friend. I do not fault that. I just hope that the seven members of the Harris County delegation, all of us who share Harris County in the metro area, could sit down and say, okay, what can we do to make it work? I do not want to give them a blank check because I do not want that and I would oppose it. But I think on a short scale, and watching what our neighbor in Dallas has done with the light rail and the success they have had that started out as a very small line that it is actually going to serve more people in the Dallas County area, I think we can learn from that. I have learned, in the last few years, Houstonians will get out of their cars and take a fixed guide rail to go somewhere. That is why, on a small scale, I think we can do this. I know we are not going to vote on this today. My colleague is going to withdraw the amendment. But, hopefully the seven of us in Harris County can sit down and work this out so we can make sure that our air quality benefits, that we literally go into the next century and look at what we are doing with the redevelopment of the central business district and, also, even with the growth and, hopefully, with Houston's bid for the Olympics in 2012.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1291, and congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his leadership. I believe Congress is well-intentioned today by not allowing the FCC the ability to impose per minute charges on Internet access services. I want to say so long to Congressman Snell and his 602-P legislation. I am sure everyone has received hundreds if not thousands of e-mails, like we have in our office, concerning this fictitious Member of Congress and this fictitious legislation. Mr. Speaker, in our markup my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, said sometimes this Congress does better by sponsoring fictitious bills by fictitious Members than they do real life legislation. H.R. 1291 is real life legislation, but I agree with the gentleman, oftentimes. Hopefully the voters would not have elected Congressman Schnell, anyway, if he had introduced such a bill. We all know that per minute access would devastate the Internet. The explosive growth in data traffic has clearly demonstrated that per minute access charges would quickly drive consumers off the Internet. I do not believe that the intention of anyone here is to do that. We need to expand the Internet and continue its growth, and allow people to expand the ability that it provides. Because access fees were originally designed for voice traffic, there was little concern about adding a few cents per minute to fund the maintenance of the telecommunications infrastructure. Unfortunately, the length of consumers' calls differs from the amount of time consumers may be online, and access charges were designed for the typical 5-minute phone call. They were not intended for the 45 minutes average that our constituents spend online on the Internet. I do have some concern, and I know we tried to address it in the committee, about the impact this would have on the solvency of the universal service fund. We do not know what telephone service will look like 5 years from now, but hopefully this Congress will be responsive and will pass this bill today.