Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on behalf of my friend and neighbor, fellow Congressman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I say neighbor because the State of Texas and New Mexico are very close. In fact, at one time Texas claimed part of that area where the fire is at in the last century. I have followed this story and the tragic fires in my colleague's district in northern New Mexico that has disrupted the lives of thousands of citizens of New Mexico, and we have shared the anguish of their families who have lost their homes and cherished possessions. There is, of course, no price we can place on much of what has been lost, but our hearts go out, and not only those of us who are Texas neighbors but also from the entire country, to the New Mexican people for this tragedy. What we can do, though, is to support the relief and recovery of the people who are now faced with putting their lives back together, because that is the right thing to do. The New Mexico Congressional delegation has done just that, and on their behalf the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) asks that all his colleagues here in the House provide their support. Right now the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is back in his district working to provide his support to try to make the difference. He is making sure information about what assistance is available is getting to the people in his Third Congressional District who have been hit so hard by this fire. He is also walking through the fire stricken parts of his district, talking to his constituents and listening to them about what they need to put their lives back together. What he has already learned has made him grateful for the efforts of the many New Mexicans and the communities surrounding the fire who have pulled together even as this tragedy unfolded, opening their homes and their hearts to the less fortunate. He has also expressed his gratefulness for the efforts of the countless organizations and firefighters who have helped bring some order to this shattered scene. Even from that distance he is advocating for what his constituents are telling him by working with this Congress to keep the Federal efforts to help these citizens on track. The resolution is one example. While in New Mexico, he has been working here in Washington to ensure that the emergency funds needed for these efforts are available. He has asked for $100 million in additional emergency aid for that purpose. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a letter from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee on the Interior, to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall): I am pleased to report that we are pursuing your suggestions in the Committee on Appropriations with regard to the need to replenish the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management firefighting funds in this fiscal year. While the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which the House passed and sent to the Senate on March 30, contained $250 million for these accounts, Senator Lott's opposition to moving the supplemental bill precluded us from providing additional funds to these agencies this spring, even though the expected weather conditions and Forest Service predictions indicate a very high risk of wildfires this year. With the fire still raging in your State of New Mexico, and with these accounts becoming seriously depleted, it is our intention to introduce a freestanding supplemental appropriations bill containing $350 million, $200 million for the Bureau of Land Management and $150 million for the U.S. Forest Service, to reflect the current estimates for emergency firefighting expenses. I want you to know that there is broad support in the Appropriations Committee, among both Republican and Democratic Members, for such a strategy. Pending a decision on whether a separate supplemental bill will have sufficient support in the Senate, I want you to know that it is also the committee's intention to add this amount of funding to the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill when the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee considers the bill on Wednesday. That is tomorrow. In addition, I have sought agreement from our committee leadership to designate this funding as emergency in nature, so that it will be available immediately upon passage by both Houses and when signed by the President. Again, continuing the letter, Mr. Speaker, Let me assure you that I and all of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee understand the urgent situation you have brought to our attention. To the best of our ability, we will attempt to play a constructive role in assuring that Forest Service and BLM firefighters will have sufficient resources to hire the fire crews to contain the New Mexico fires now occurring, as well as to fight additional wildfires that may occur later in this fiscal year. Again, Mr. Speaker, this letter is signed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations. While the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is in New Mexico he remains in close contact with the Federal agencies that share the assistance and relief responsibilities for dealing with this disaster. He wants to make sure that the maximum effort is being employed to discharge these responsibilities. And, again, having him on the ground in New Mexico is just like, and I can relate to it in Texas when we have a hurricane come to the coast in Houston, oftentimes we have to fight a battle here to have the resources at home, but oftentimes we need to be at home to see what our constituents need, and that is what the gentleman from New Mexico is doing today. This resolution is a first step in taking both responsibility for the fire but also to help mitigate the threats of fire to public health and to take the necessary steps to compensate the people of New Mexico. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) mentioned, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) has expressed to me, the people in New Mexico are opening their homes and their hearts to the people affected. The firefighting teams should be commended for their courage in battling the fire, as well as the New Mexico National Guard and the State of New Mexico for their efforts in mitigating the fire. We could go on and on. The American Red Cross, and the other western States who have provided help to New Mexico by sending people and equipment, as well as the businesses who have served food and clothing at collection points. Thanks also should go to the Sandia National Laboratory for their assistance to the fire victims, and the Department of Energy for providing analysis regarding public health. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the decision this Congress must make regarding extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China. Over the last several months I worked the 29th district and talked to people who have varying opinions both for and against granting PNTR to china. These many conversations have reinforced my existing belief that there is no easy way to decide whether a vote in favor or in opposition of expanding trade with China is correct. Having been to China, I have great respect for the Chinese people, their culture, and their impressive history. The vitality is there, we should encourage it to expand. While I understand that you cannot move 1.2 billion people from communism to a free democracy overnight it appears that China has been moving backwards. Recent actions by China to prohibit the free expression of religion and their unwillingness to open their domestic markets to foreign products is very troubling. During my tenure in Congress, I have tried to closely examine the various trade measures that the House of Representatives considered. I voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but supported the annual extension of Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status, now called Normal Trade Relations (NTR), to China. The differences in my voting record reflects my concerns about blanket trade agreements that, once signed, will disadvantage the American producer. As the vote on granting China PNTR looms in two weeks, I want to discuss the criteria used to develop my position on this trade agreement. There were three main components that I felt had to be met before I could support the measure: First, we must safeguard American security against a potential adversary. Second, the legislation should encourage policies allowing greater individual liberty, the rule of law, and religious freedom. And finally, American economic interests should not be harmed. When I considered China's recent actions toward Taiwan and the possibility of a direct Chinese attack if Taiwan had decided to declare independence, I wondered how granting annual NTR to China in recent years had tempered their belligerent attitudes. This latest bluster by Beijing is comparable to the 1996 Chinese ``missile test'' over the Taiwan Straits during Taiwan's first democratic elections. Beijing's attempt to intimidate Taiwanese voters failed to deter them from electing President Lee Teng-hui. (Chen) Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and its people should have every right to elect their leaders. Has granting NTR to China stopped them from taking such an aggressive posture towards Taiwan? I do not believe it has. So, when taken in the context of preserving the security of the United States, the past decisions to grant China greater trading access has not increased our national security. The United States must remain on constant alert and ready to defend Taiwan if China decides to attack. In addition, the willingness of the Chinese government to allow the stoning of our embassy last year after we mistakenly bombed their embassy in Belgrade was of great concern to me. I find it very unsettling when a nation with nuclear weapons uses such tactics to try and intimidate our government. Because of these incidents, I feel China has failed to meet the first criteria of safeguarding American security. China's continuing problem with religious freedom has frequently caused concern in my district. China's record on religious and workers' rights continues to be disappointing. Take for instance the recent imprisonment of several thousand members of the Falun-Gong spiritual movement. This peaceful organization uses meditation and exercise to promote inner strength and healing. The Chinese government has responded to this movement by systematically imprisoning the leaders of this peaceful group on charges they are attempting to undermine the Communist Party. I find this continuing lack of tolerance by the Chinese government very disturbing because it simply reinforces the bloody images of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Cracking down on the Falun-Gong indicates to me that granting NTR, and now possibly PNTR, will have absolutely no effect on improving religious freedom. China wants Permanent Normal Trade Relations with no strings attached. Granting NTR on an annual basis allows us to retain some ability to impact the Chinese government and monitor their international conduct. Unfortunately, in light of recent incidents I now have concerns that granting PNTR will allow China to completely ignore their responsibilities to promote religious and individual freedom. Because of this belief, I feel China has failed to meet the second portion of my criteria dealing with improving religious freedoms and human rights. Finally, I am concerned that China has yet established a judicial system where the impartial ``rule of law'' principle is applied. Access to an impartial court system is critical for economic development and individual freedom. Unfortunately, this principle has yet to develop in China. Companies doing business in China have little recourse if their permits to enter the domestic Chinese markets are withheld because of resistance from within the governmental bureaucracy. The Chinese judicial system is still a political tool of the Communist Party. It is not unusual for verdicts to be decided before cases even go to trial. In addition, the Chinese judicial system is responsible for maintaining social order by imprisoning political dissidents. When I visited China two years ago, I saw a Kodak factory that was built to serve the domestic and foreign markets. During the visit I asked a Kodak representative if they had received permission to market their products in China. They had received permission by contract, but still could not serve the domestic market. Had this situation occurred in this country Kodak could have gone to court to enforce their access rights. Unfortunately, they were in China where access to a fair court hearing is questionable at best. Mr. Speaker, China wants the foreign investment to build new production facilities that can employ the millions of Chinese workers throughout their country. However, it is becoming quite clear that any new facilities will be strictly for export purposes. The U.S. trade deficit with China has grown from $6 billion in 1989 to $70 billion in 1999. This staggering figure does not even include the estimated losses due to piracy of U.S. intellectual property, which in 1998 was $2.6 billion and totaled $10 billion from 1995 to 1998, according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance. By granting China PNTR, we surrender the only effective economic and political voice to effect positive change in China, the annual vote to renew NTR. Growth in this new economy is very important to me, but it is because of freedom and individual initiative, not control. There are too many protesters in prison. There are too many religious persecutions. There are too many military threats. Granting China PNTR now might be economically rewarding, but it would be morally wrong. Last year, I supported and spoke in favor of granting a one-year extension of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I support a comprehensive engagement with China that includes free and fair trade, but only after China has demonstrated a willingness to become a responsible member of the world community. China should move toward more individual freedom not less. More negotiation with Taiwan and not military threats. China historically is a great nation and can and should be part of this global economic success, but it's not accomplished by persecution and threats. I cannot support granting PNTR to China until the government gives up its reliance on threats and intimidation to achieve their international policy goals.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution I have introduced today with Congressman Bill Archer and Congressman Ken Bentsen, both fellow Texans, to express the sense of the House that funding for juvenile diabetes should be increased. On April 27 we held a juvenile diabetes forum at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, TX. At this forum, graciously sponsored by Texas Children's Hospital President and CEO Mark A. Wallace, we heard from Richard Furlanetto, scientific director of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and Dr. Ralph Feign, president, of the Baylor College of Medicine and physician-in-chief, Texas Children's Hospital, who shared with us some of the recent advances in treating juvenile diabetes. At Texas Children's Hospital and at Baylor, researchers are involved in promising studies into the complications of diabetes, glucose metabolism and insulin secretion. Dr. Morey Haymond, a pediatrician who is much beloved by his small patients and their parents, spoke on the day-to-day concerns associated with juvenile diabetes and the need to increase funding for research. Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Ross Cooley updated the group on Juvenile Diabetes Foundation's fund-raising activities, and also shared his own experiences with a daughter who suffers from the disease. Jane Adams, associated director for government relations of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation provided an update on the group's legislative agenda and the need for grassroots advocacy. Perhaps most compelling was the testimony of the families who attended the event. Molly Naylor, State leader for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation in Houston and a tireless advocate for children and their families, shared the stories of her family and others and the difficulties they face in dealing with this disease. Mary Kay Cottingham, accompanied by her guide dog, spoke on losing her sight as well as the organ transplants she has undergone--all due to juvenile diabetes. When Larry and Leslie Balthazar shared their personal story of discovering that Larry Junior, at 2 years old, had been diagnosed with juvenile diabetes there was not a dry eye in the house. These parents' love and worry for their child was so compelling and powerful that every person in the room was motivated to do whatever they could to eradicate this terrible disease. The resolution I am introducing today stems from that event. We need to do more to cure juvenile diabetes. We have the resources, we have the technical expertise, and we are so very close to finding a cure. Our resolution concisely outlines the problem and the solution: Whereas, over one million Americans suffer from juvenile (Type I) diabetes, a chronic, genetically determined, debilitating disease affecting every organ system; Whereas 13,000 children a year--35 each day--are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes; Whereas 17,000 children a year--46 each day--are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes; Whereas juvenile diabetes is one of the most costly chronic diseases of childhood; Whereas insulin treats but does not cure this potentially deadly disease and does not prevent the complications of diabetes, which include blindness, heart attack, kidney failure, stroke, nerve damage, and amputations; Whereas the Diabetes Research Working Group, a non-partisan advisory board established to advise Congress, has called for an accelerated and expanded diabetes research program at the National Institutes of Health and has recommended a $4.1 billion increase in Federal funding for diabetes research at the National Institutes of Health over the next five years; and Whereas a strong public-private partnership to fund juvenile diabetes exists between the Federal Government and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, a foundation which has awarded more than $326 million for diabetes research since 1970 and will give $100 million in fiscal year 2001: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) That Federal funding for diabetes research should be increased in accordance with the recommendations of the Diabetes Working Group so that a cure for juvenile diabetes can be found. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. As the world's most prosperous and powerful nation we should be directing our resources to research and development. We should be investing in finding a cure for diabetes--Larry Balthazar Junior, and thousands of children like him, deserve no less.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Nation's most valuable resources, the dedicated men and women who serve as teachers. I know that dedication, because I have been married for 30 years to a high school algebra teacher. I come home at night in our district at 9:30 or 10:00 and exhausted, and she is still grading papers or inputting grades into the computer. Our teachers are hard-working professionals who are on the front lines of our struggle to provide a quality education for every child in America. Day in and day out they work hard so that our children can be prepared for whatever they want to be in the future. Teacher appreciation week is our time to show the appreciation for teachers. I would like to say that we could do much better. We should be able to put aside our differences and pass worthwhile legislation like H.R. 1196, which would repeal the 60-month limit on student loan interest deductibility and help relieve the burden of student loan debt for our teachers; H.R. 4555, the Teacher Technology Training Act, so that local money could be provided to train teachers in computer-related skills in the classroom; the School Construction Act to modernize our school facilities; and H.R. 1623, the Classroom Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Act. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things we can do outside of just recognizing our teachers this week.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member, for this legislation. Just two weeks ago during our Easter Passover break at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and I held a juvenile diabetes forum to hear from parents and experts on that terrible disease. Every member of the audience cried, literally, as we heard from the parents of 3-year-old Larry Baltazar who has recently been diagnosed with this disease. This legislation will help Larry, along with helping millions of other children who are diagnosed with juvenile diabetes, asthma, Fragile X and autism. It will help children who are diagnosed with birth defects and those who suffer a traumatic brain injury. One thing that this legislation does not do, and I hope we can get this remedied in the conference committee, is increase funds to States for immunizations. Despite gains in recent years, we still are not doing enough to make sure that children get the right immunizations when they need it. In States like Texas, Michigan and Nevada, one in four children are not receiving the proper immunizations. In Houston, over 44 percent of the children do not receive at least one of their immunizations. In California, 27 percent do not receive at least one of their immunizations. Over the past 5 years, Federal infrastructure funding to States, used by States and cities to identify needs, conduct community outreach, establish registries, deal with disease outbreaks and undertake educational and tracking efforts, among other things, has been cut from $271 million in 1995 to $139 million for the past 3 years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have introduced H. Con. Res. 315, which calls for an increase in funds to section 317, and we hope this increase will be included in the final version of the children's health legislation as it comes out of conference.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, all of us share in the loss of Cardinal O'Connor, even though we are not from New York. Mr. Speaker, last evening, the House of Representatives was spammed. Spam is unsolicited e-mail that can be sent in such a large volume that it disables the recipient's network. I am sure my colleagues have read recent news reports of companies like e-Bay and Amazon.com having their networks taken down by coordinated e-mail attacks. This is a growing problem that Congress needs to quickly address. I have introduced H.R. 3113, along with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), that will provide consumers and businesses protection against these types of attacks. Mr. Speaker, many of the messages the House received last night simply were titled ``I love you.'' And I know that all of us in the House and our staff enjoy looking at our computers in the morning and seeing ``I love you.'' Apart from the interesting title, there is nothing friendly in this message. If we opened this e-mail, our computer would be infected by a virus that we would then have to spend considerable time and effort removing from our network. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce has held a markup on anti-spam legislation, and it passed the subcommittee by voice vote. I hope this incident will bring a quick full-committee mark-up. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues not to open any messages, even though they say ``I love you.'' This may be the second time our House has been spammed, but I feel fairly certain that it will not be the last. Let us pass H.R. 3113.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for, one, requesting this special order. It seems like we have been doing this for a good while on the prescription medication problems seniors have, but not only seniors, but everyone in our country, but particularly seniors, because of the limited income. I know dozens of Democratic Members participated last week on April 26th all around the country, I forget if it was 60 Members talked to seniors, had different events in their district on the problems with prescription drugs, and we did one in Houston that we found, in fact this was our third time to do a study of prescription drugs in Houston, this time compared to what the same prescriptions for their pets would be. Our three other studies showed that seniors pay almost double, in some cases in fact more than double, than what the most preferred purchasers of medications would be, like VA or the local HMOs or something like that. We found that for seniors walking into their local drugstore, whether it is a chain or an individual. The next study we did in our district, and I think the numbers around the country may vary, but typically you can say seniors pay double the cost. We are 6\1/2\ hours drive from Mexico, and in Houston people can save almost half their prescription costs by going to Mexico. The same thing on the Canadian border. In fact, I know there is a candidate running for the Senate that has bus loads of seniors he takes to Canada from somewhere up in the northern United States. I had a constituent that suggested I do that. I said it is a much longer bus ride to Mexico than it is to Canada. But the one we released last week showed that some of the same prescriptions that you and I and seniors may take are also prescribed for pets. Again, oftentimes seniors, humans, pay double what the same prescription is for the pet for the same disease. We met at the Magnolia Multipurpose Center, we have a great senior citizen community there, actually it is a multipurpose center paid by community block grant money years ago, and we found that seniors might want to start taking out prescriptions in their pet's names instead of their own. It would save them hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars a year. I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform Democratic staff who conducted this study, not only in my district, but all over the country, and all three of the studies, and particularly this last one, the price differences between humans and animals. That third study the committee conducted on prescription drugs, it found that pharmaceutical companies were taking advantage of older Americans through price discrimination. What we found out was that the third study showed if you are furry and have four paws, you get a better deal. If you are a grandpa or grandma, you have to pay top dollar for these same drugs. The committee staff found, and again these were five pharmacies in our district that they checked the costs with, that in some cases the average cost was 106 to 151 percent higher than what humans pay. It shows that our Nation's seniors are paying not only more than the preferred providers, that we do, and I see our colleague here from Maine, we are cosponsors of his bill that would allow for seniors to take advantage of that group purchasing like anyone else, that is free enterprise. We get millions of seniors together and we can get better deals for them on the most commonly used drugs. We found that not only that, but you can go to Mexico or Canada and get cheaper drugs. In fact, you can almost go anywhere in the world and get cheaper pharmaceuticals than in the United States. Now we found that even in the United States, our pets for the same prescriptions, can get it cheaper. Let me pick out two particular drugs. If you need Lodine, it is a popular arthritis drug, it will cost you $38 if you are a pet for a month's supply, but if you are a human it costs you $109 in Houston, the average price in our pharmacies. If you need Vasotec, the 14th most prescribed human drug in 1998, you can get a 1 month's supply for $78, but your pet can receive it for $52. What we had, and we had really a fine looking animal at our prescription drug event, he was a dog that the owner got out of the pound, but he looked like he was part German shepherd and was very good. Lucky was the dog's name. Lucky had asthma, and, as we stand here on the floor tonight, it is tragic that Lucky, even though Lucky is a fine animal and a great pet and was very docile during our press conference, that Lucky gets asthma medicine cheaper than my seniors who were there watching. It is a tragedy. It should not happen in these United States. That is what is so frustrating. I know that is what is frustrating about what we have been trying to do. We have been talking about this for 2 years now. What we need is some broad coverage. Whether it is a supplement to Medicare, we need current coverage. But we have made the case that in 1965 and 1966 and 1967 there are certain illnesses today that you can have prescriptions for that back then required to you go to your doctor, and Medicare would have paid that doctor, and will still pay that doctor. But now you can keep from going to that doctor by taking that pill, whether it is blood pressure pill, whether it is heart medication, whether it is cholesterol control, whether it is depression medication, and we have checked all these prescriptions in our district, whether it be going to Mexico, whether it be going to preferred provider, and our seniors pay so much more than any of those cases. In Houston, when the Houston Chronicle covered it and talked about it, in fact the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) did an event that afternoon in his district, the response to that by the pharmaceutical companies was, well, those drugs are first developed for humans, and that is why they were developed, and then it is maybe a different company we license to sell to pets. That does not make sense. You are making humans pay for the research cost, and I understand these drugs are not developed for free, they are developed with NIH funding, and hopefully we will continue the increase as we have done for the last few years, but they are developed with private sector dollars. But why should pets not have to pay the same, if they are being benefited, why should not the rest of the people in the world, if these pharmaceuticals are developed with tax dollars from our country, along with private sector dollars, why should the rest of the world not have to pay some of the costs for the development, particularly our neighbors in Canada and Mexico. I have to admit, I have bought prescriptions in Latin America. I used this at our press conference, I have allergies. I have had allergies for 25 years, and whether I am in Houston or Austin, Texas, where I served in the legislature, or Washington, I have allergies. I know what will solve my problem. If it is a small infection, I can take amoxicillin. Amoxicillin, by the way, was one of the few drugs we found that the cost for the pet and the human were close. But if I really have a bad allergy infection, I have to take Augmentin, which is a better antibiotic, much more broad coverage, and with Augmentin, the price discrimination was the same. I have to admit, I have bought Augmentin and amoxicillin in Mexico, Costa Rica and a number of Latin America countries, where you do not have to have a prescription. My daughter, who is in medical school, tells me I should not self-diagnose, but I say no, I have been diagnosed that way for 25 years by doctors, so I know what will cure it. I realize how cheaper the pharmaceuticals are in other countries than in our own country. Again, that is a tragedy, because as we stand here tonight we know we have seniors who say I cannot take that blood pressure medication as the doctor prescribed because I cannot afford it, so I am only going to take half the prescription now. Or they go in, and I heard it earlier, someone will go in and say, a senior will go in and get the bill for the pharmaceutical and say I cannot afford it, and they will walk out of that drugstore without getting that pharmaceutical filled. That happens to people in our own districts that are not seniors, but it is tragic that it happens to seniors who have paid their dues, who have built this country, who are the greatest generation, as we know, and yet they do not have the access to some of the greatest generation's accomplishments in the last 30 years in pharmaceuticals. I want to thank the gentleman as the Chair of our Democratic Health Care Task Force and the effort he is doing. I enjoy serving on the task force, but also our Subcommittee on Health and the Committee on Commerce. I would like to have some hearings in our Committee on Commerce on this. That is what we are here for. We can have hearings on prescription drug benefits. Now I know my Republican colleagues have a plan, and my concern about that plan is that they want us to provide where we could go down and buy health care coverage only for prescriptions. Well, it is kind of like what I heard the example was, it is kind of like health care for seniors, that is why we had to have Medicare. Every senior is going to have to have prescriptions. If you have insurance it works where you spread the risk. But if you do not have people to spread it to with seniors, the pharmaceutical costs, the insurance costs will be so high nobody can afford it. So that solution is not a solution. It may get them through November, they hope, but it is not a solution. We need to address this issue this year. We need to provide pharmaceuticals at a reasonable cost for seniors. We can use the Tom Allen bill that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has worked on, and a bill from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). I think it was one of the first ones we cosponsored. We have a plan that the gentleman and I are cosponsoring that is a Medicare addition that would be allowed. I have some questions about how that will be done still, and the broad coverage for it, but we need to address it and we need to address it by having hearings in the Committee on Commerce, having hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, and saying okay, what can we do to solve this problem, instead of continuing to bury our head in the sand and hopefully the November elections will get here and get past. I do not think the American people are going to allow that. I hope the seniors will not allow us to do that. We need to address it now and we need to have a bill here on the floor within the next 30 days. We have been signing a discharge petition, and we are still working on getting our magic number of 218. So I do not know how many are on there that are our Republican colleagues, but I can tell you it is probably 10 to 1, maybe 20 to 1, Democratic signatures. We need to have that bill on the floor. I would like it to go through the process. We have a legislative hearing process. Let us have the hearings and put all the bills there and have testimony on them, and let us have the give and take, so that we have at the end of the day, at the end of this Congressional session, we need to have a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens that is fair, that is cost effective, and it will keep them from having to make those tough decisions on whether they are going to have heating in the winter or air conditioning in the summer in Houston, or whether they are going to take their prescription medication. That is wrong, and we need to address it. Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, most Americans are surprised to learn that in some States one in four children are not receiving the immunizations they need to prevent disease and death. Yet despite gains in recent years, we are still not doing enough to make sure that children get the right immunizations when they need them. As this chart shows, in some States, like my home State of Texas, Michigan, and Nevada one in four children are not receiving one or more of the immunizations they need by the time they are 2 years old. In Houston, we share seven Members of Congress in Houston, and that is my district, over 44 percent of our children do not receive one or more of the immunizations. Over 44 percent of the children receive less than one or more of their immunizations. I am introducing two bills that will help correct this situation. The first is the sense of Congress that calls for increase in funding to crucial State immunization infrastructure programs. The second bill, the Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act, will require health plans to begin providing immunizations to children as a covered benefit. America's children need our help. In recent months, some have questioned why vaccines are needed at all. Some have linked them to adverse effects, such as autism. While there is no scientific link between immunizations and autism, and I will repeat, no scientific link between immunization and autism, I support efforts to completely and thoroughly research this issue to put the minds of parents at rest. We should not lose our focus, however, on the huge health gains that have resulted from immunizations. The Centers for Disease Control list vaccinations for children as the number one public health achievement of the last century. Before we had the smallpox vaccine, 48,000 Americans per year had this disease; 1,528 died. Before we had a measles vaccine, close to one-half million children a year got this disease, and over 400 died. Before we had the mumps vaccine, close to 150,000 died each year of this disease. Before we had diphtheria vaccination, over 175,000 children got sick each year. None of these diseases have been eliminated. Only smallpox has been eradicated. An epidemic of unvaccinated children is entirely possible, as we saw with measles in 1989. Children still die of the measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. These are dangerous and harmful, painful and sometimes fatal diseases. Measles can lead to seizures and death. Mumps can lead to deafness. Polio causes paralysis that can lead to permanent disability and death. Diphtheria can result in coma and death. Whooping cough can result in death for infants. Providing access to lifesaving vaccines should be one of our Nation's top priorities. Tracking children who have not been vaccinated, in order to prevent future outbreaks, should be another priority. To meet these goals, the sense of Congress resolution I have introduced with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), calls for an increase in Federal funds to the Public Health Service's Section 317 infrastructure program. A similar resolution was approved by the Senate Budget Committee in March. These funds are used by States and cities to support a complex array of programs and activities, including implementation of registries, community outreach, management of vaccines, quality assurance services, and surveillance and outbreak control. As this chart of funds illustrates, infrastructure funds have reduced rather dramatically in the last 5 years, from $271 million in 1995, to $139 million today. That is a 40 percent decrease in funds for infrastructure immunization. Yet the need for outreach and registry and infrastructure development is greater today than it was in 1995. If you have not heard from your State health director on this issue, you will. Cuts in infrastructure funding have meant different things in different States. In Florida, for example, the State reports that it has reduced surveys on pockets of need and has reduced monitoring due to lack of adequate staffing. The State has reduced community outreach staffs and reduced the number of reminder cards it sends. Florida has also reduced its school-based immunization clinics and has had to cut back on efforts at day care centers. In California, where infrastructure funds have been reduced from $27 million in 1997 to $14.9 million in 1999, only 35 percent of children have been vaccinated against chicken pox, and the State has no system to monitor chicken pox cases. In California, a targeted immunization information campaign aimed at Latino, African and American Southeast Asian families has been eliminated. The need for increased infrastructure funding is particularly important in light of a recent journal of the American Medical Association showing that 50 percent of America's children are either over- or under-vaccinated. Mr. Speaker, the JAMA study shows that 21% of toddlers received at least one extra immunization while 31% missed at least one. In other words, over 50% of American children are receiving too few or too many vaccinations. We should do a better job of tracking these children. A Section 317 funding increase is supported by: the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association. The increase is also supported by the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Every Child by Two, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the Association of County and City Health Officials. My second legislative initiative, the Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of 2000, requires all health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to provide coverage of immunizations for children 18 years old and younger. The vaccines required to be covered are those recommended by CDC's Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule, issued periodically by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. This schedule is approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics and others and serves as the standard for immunization in the United States. Plans may not charge any payment for the immunizations or vaccines. And vaccines must be made available to children as soon as they are approved by the Advisory Committee. Beginning for plan years in 2001, ERISA governed health plans must provide the benefit. For plans that are negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the effective date is delayed until plan years following the termination date of the current underlying collective bargaining agreement. The adoption of collectively bargained plan amendments made solely in order to comply with the new requirements will not affect the timing of the effective date under this special rule. Why is federal legislation needed? The federal government gives this benefit to its own workers: it requires plans that contract with the Office of Personnel Management to provide immunizations for children as a covered benefit. Many states have recognized the importance of covering vaccines. Twenty-four states, including Texas, have enacted laws to require state-regulated plans to provide vaccines. How big is the problem? A March, 2000 William M. Mercer survey done for the non-profit Partnership for Prevention showed that nearly one in five employer-sponsored plans do not cover immunizations for infants and children. Nearly one in four children in Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) and Indemnity plans do not have coverage for immunizations. The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of 2000 is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others. It, and our Sense of the Congress resolution, will improve the health of millions of American children is a cost-effective manner. For each dollar we spend on vaccines we save twenty-four dollars in future health costs. That's a good investment. I urge my colleagues to support these two bills and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during this last Easter weekend, several Members of the Texas delegation, led by our U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and myself traveled to Bosnia with Senator Hutchinson to visit the Texas National Guard's 49th Division and observed Easter Sunrise Services with our Guard in Tuzla. We had the opportunity to examine the operating situation of U.S. forces in Bosnia. We were accompanied by General Russell Davis, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, but also our General in Texas, Daniel James of the Texas National Guard, to observe the Commanding General Robert Halverson in the 49th Texas division. I personally had the opportunity to visit with Colonel Tom Roman who, in his real life, is a lieutenant in the Houston Police Department, who is currently serving in the division. Frankly, we have three Houston police officers who, not only serve Houston during their regular jobs, but are now serving in Tuzla, Bosnia, serving our country with the 49th Division. For the first time in history, we have a National Guard division who is in charge of a regular Army unit in Bosnia. I am proud of the outstanding job our troops are doing in helping bring peace to this ravaged war-torn area. They have been successful in stopping the killing of women and children and trying to bring stability to that area. They are serving our country with honor and are proving that the Guard is a reliable part of our Armed Forces. Let me just show for national television the T-shirt that shows the Eagle Base with the 49th Lone Star Texas Division emblem on it. Thank you.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4163, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This legislation brings much-needed simplification to our tax code and ensures that a taxpayer's privacy will be protected. Taxpayers should be assured that the information they provide to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be kept secure and confidential. Information on earnings, property and other income should be kept private, and this bill ensures that it will be. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights requires IRS supervisors, not rank-and-file workers, to determine if there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation into an individual's tax return. The bill also requires states to conduct annual on-site investigations of contractors who receive federal tax information and process it for state agencies to ensure that this information is being safeguarded. Further, this legislation requires the IRS to notify taxpayers in all instances in which the IRS has unlawfully obtained a taxpayer's return or other information. The legislation contains other important consumer protections, including a provision that tightens the requirements for banks to get access to a taxpayer's records. And, it requires that all third parties keep this information confidential. H.R. 4163 helps taxpayers who are self-employed by simplifying the formula for estimated taxes. By allowing taxpayers to use one interest rate in calculating estimated tax, much time and effort will be saved. In addition, the bill's increase, from $1,000 to $2,000, in the threshold over which penalties must be paid for failure to pay estimated tax will help thousands of self-employed persons each year who miscalculate their taxes. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative. As tax day approaches, this is the least we can do to reduce the regulatory burden the IRS imposes on the American taxpayer.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I thank my colleague for yielding me the 1 minute. Project Exile first started in Richmond, Virginia, and it has overwhelming success. In my home State of Texas, we have started the only Statewide version of this innovative crime-control program. Hopefully, that is why Texas is one of the States that was selected to participate. Last fall, Texas State officials launched Texas Exile, which has assigned eight new prosecutors to major Texas cities. Their sole purpose is to lock up criminals who use guns to commit crime. To date, the program is responsible for 197 arrests, 115 indictments, 10 convictions, and 632 guns confiscated. The word on the street, it is on the street. Just last week, when Austin police arrested a career criminal with a gun, they asked him why he ran from the scene, his response was ``I heard about that new program that would get me 5 extra years in jail.'' It is about time that the criminals, not citizens, are the one running scared. Thanks to this program, they are. And in Texas, criminals know that gun crime means more hard time in Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a new baseball park that is opening for the Houston Astros National League opening this Friday night. I know a lot of times Members get up, and I do it too, on 1-minutes and talk about the issues of the day, and that is important because that is what we are here for, but it is also used to talk about things that are happening across this great country of ours. In Houston, Texas' tomorrow night National League opener, the Houston Astros, is in our new Enron Field. Having grown up in Houston and watched the old Colt 45s in Colt Stadium and the Astros in the Astrodome, our new home, the three-time defending National League Central Champions, the Houston Astros are opening in Enron Field. It has been called the ninth wonder of the world now because it replaces the Astrodome which was the eighth wonder of the world. The new diamond was approved by the voters and built in the heart of downtown Houston, like a lot of baseball stadiums are being done today in advancing the economic vitality of our city centers. It features 42,000 seats and all the amenities that everyone could ever imagine that those of us who grew up with baseball cannot imagine that would be available. I am proud of the Astros along with the City of Houston, and best of luck tomorrow night when they play the Philadelphia Phillies.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition of H.R. 3660. More importantly, on a very difficult decision for women and their families. The subject of abortion has always been very controversial. The choice of whether or not to have an abortion is difficult and highly personal. Although I do not personally support abortion, I do not feel that Congress should interfere in this extremely private decision and force its views on women through legislative means. I can only hope that women faced with this decision would consult with their doctors, families, and religious counselors. This is especially true in the tragic instance where an abortion may become necessary late in a pregnancy. This ban would leave the life and health of women unprotected. These exemptions have been consistently protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no exception under this ban to protect the mother or her health at any point during her pregnancy. In fact, Texas law bans all third-trimester abortions, except for those involving the health and life of the mother. I voted for this law when I was in the Texas legislature and would support it now if those exceptions were included. This bill is nothing but a political maneuver. If the majority was interested in banning late-term abortions, they would allow us to vote on language that is identical to the Texas law. Until then, I cannot support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage of H.R. 3660.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a great deal of sorrow and concern because yesterday an explosion and fire occurred at Phillips Petroleum Company plant in Pasadena, Texas, which is part of the district that I represent. This tragedy resulted in the death of one worker and the injury of 71 others. According to the Houston Chronicle, at least three of the injured were listed in critical condition, and six were listed in serious condition. Our thoughts and our prayers are with the men and women of the Phillips plant and their families. The cause of this accident has not been determined. In fact, just today were they allowed to go back into the plant except for the suppression personnel. About 850 Phillips employees and about 100 subcontractors work at the Pasadena plant complex. Phillips Petroleum officials said about 600 workers were on duty when the explosion occurred yesterday afternoon about 1 p.m. As a result of the fire and smoke, 23 campuses in the Pasadena Independent School District and 8 campuses in the Galena Park Independent School District were forced to turn off their air conditioning and close their doors and windows and keep the children inside. According to Phillips, the chemicals that burned in the fire could irritate one's eyes and nose and throat if inhaled in high concentrations, but the air monitors that were around the plant and in the community found no signs that anyone outside the plant was exposed to these toxic chemicals. The explosion occurred in the section of the Phillips plant that produces K-Resin. K-Resin is the chemical used to make cups, lids, toys, shower doors, coat hangers, and clear packaging materials, such as shrink wrap that we wrap our groceries in and leftovers, bread wrappers, bottles for drinking water, clear boxes and trays. I have visited the Phillips plant on several occasions and have met numerous times, not only with the management, but with the employees who are represented by PACE, the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers, International Union, formally, known as the OCAW. I have also attended annual events, including the annual memorial that both the industry and the union plan every year in tribute to workers who have lost their lives in workplace accidents. The work of the chemical plant is dangerous. The employees who work at the Phillips plant and the many others along the Houston Ship Channel know the impact an explosion can make. That is why we need stronger worker protections. We cannot prevent every accident, but we can ensure that every worker has a reasonable expectation that he or she will be safe. The Phillips Petroleum plant has a long history of accidents that have resulted in facilities and many safety violations. We hope that again we learn from our experiences. In the last year, this facility has experienced three other explosions. The worst of these occurred last June and resulted in the death of two employees. The other two explosions occurred in August and April of last year. By far the deadliest year for Phillips Petroleum was in 1989. On October 23, 1989, an explosion resulted in 23 deaths and 130 injuries. A few months before this explosion, six employees were injured when a natural gas pipeline near the plant's boiler room exploded. Two of the injured workers later died of their injuries. Producing the products that our Nation and our world require is inherently dangerous. It is important that OSHA inspectors move quickly to investigate the cause of this most recent explosion. We need to do everything we can to ensure that accidents like this will never happen again. In closing, our prayers are for the speedy recovery for those injured and also for the loss of that one life. The loss of one life is one too many.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about guns, but I am going to talk about something we may vote on this week. My Republican colleagues may bring to the floor a budget resolution that their own colleagues say is foolish and spendthrift. The Republican budget resolution, at least as we see it now, but I understand that it may be changing, does nothing to aid Social Security and Medicare and does not extend the programs' solvency for one single day. It spends the projected tax surplus on tax cuts, and it does not set aside a dime to pay off the $5.5 trillion in debt. The Republican leadership, I am concerned, are making promises that they cannot keep. As a Democrat, it is not only us that is rejecting that budget. My colleague, the Senator from Texas said this last week, ``If this budget is adopted, we will have found a surefire way to stop Democrats from spending the surplus; the Republicans will spend it first.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate my remarks with the remarks of my colleague from Galveston County today with the death of Walter Hall. One, he is a great American but also a great Texan. Let me say what I am really here for is that here we go again. It seems like Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again. We are counting our surplus eggs before they have hatched. Like kids who have taken their parents' credit cards and are on a buying spree, my Republican colleagues are busy spending a budget surplus that does not exist yet. It is just a wish and a prayer. Instead of paying down the $5.5 trillion national debt and securing the future of Social Security and Medicare, they want another tax cut. It is strange, for the first time this last 10 days we are actually having the Department of Treasury paying off part of our national debt, first time in recent history; but their efforts would stop this. We should be using the surplus to ensure that Social Security and Medicare will rest on a financially sound foundation well into the next century. My Republican friends, though, are proposing billions in tax cuts that would take this away. We need to do better. The American people need to do better. We need to do better.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the House to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune about one of our oldest friends . . . the U.S. Government Printing Office. I have a real appreciation of the GPO, having started as a printer's apprentice in 1968 as a member of Houston Typographic Union Local 87. The article is profuse in its praise of the GPO, stating that while the agency usually ``wears a low profile,'' the service that it provides the Congress and the Nation is absolutely crucial in our democratic system of government. In noting the vast range of publications the GPO handles--from the daily Congressional Record to the Findings of Fact in the Microsoft case--the article describes how the GPO has moved from a traditional ink-on-paper factory to a widely heralded provider of Government information over the Internet. It is a success story that is worthy of everyone's attention. A generation ago, the GPO had a workforce of 8,500. Today, there are about 3,300, yet not only does the GPO continue to print government publications, it is now a key player in the world of online government information. The incredible success of cutting staff by more than 50 percent while expanding services to Congress and the Nation is virtually without comparison. The GPO's expert use of technology has made this achievement possible--technology which has transformed the way the GPO processes printing, and technology which makes it possible for the public to download more than 20 million publications a month from the GPO's online service, GPO Access. Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible achievement, and I include the text of this excellent article for all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We are fortunate, indeed, to have an agency of this caliber, with its expert workforce and its record of savings and technological achievement, working in support of the Congress and the American people. [From the Chicago Tribune, Tues., Mar. 7, 2000] From the Starr Report to White House Menus, Government Printing Office Is Paperwork Central (By Glen Elsasser) Washington--In a fortresslike complex near Capitol Hill, Kenneth Fatkin occupies the front lines of government. Though safely distanced from the frenzy of politics, he still confronts the handiwork of legions of federal agencies, Congress and the White House, handiwork that affects the lives of millions of Americans. Amid shelves of reference books, Fatkin on a recent morning was scanning a set of proposed rules from the Federal Aviation Agency about the takeoff and landing of airplanes. Despite the abstruse language, he quickly marked up the page. Fatkin works for the Government Printing Office, an agency that considers itself the largest supplier of government informational materials in the world. Those materials include everything from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's case against President Clinton to a ``My Wetlands Coloring Book'' for kids. It also prints the Federal Register, which 100 proofreaders including Fatkin work around the clock to produce. Five days a week, the register provides a complete update of government rules, executive orders, presidential proclamations and proposed regulations. Within the monstrous federal bureaucracy, the Government Printing Office generally wears a low profile, but a brief moment of fame came in 1998 when, under deadline, heavy security and massive publicity, the GPO published the Starr report. In all, the report and its two supplements took up five volumes totaling more than 8,000 pages. The sale of the report, which detailed the president's relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, drew lines of purchasers outside its main bookstore and gave TV viewers a rare glimpse of the GPO headquarters. More recently, the GPO played a crucial role in circulating the long-awaited findings in the ongoing Microsoft antitrust case. Within two hours after U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had announced his initial ruling at 4:30 p.m. on Nov. 4, printed copies were available at the GPO bookstore and the electronic version was ready on-line. A printed copy of the 207-page document, and an electronic disk, had been sent to the GPO immediately after his decision. Another GPO staple is the Congressional Record, which chronicles the daily proceedings in Congress and prints debates verbatim. Requiring all-night production, an average copy of the Record runs 200 pages and must be available on the floor of both houses by 9 a.m. when Congress is in session. Among the GPO's other key functions is printing the federal budget, which this year was accompanied by five related publications totaling 2,808 pages and weighing 12 pounds. The 2001 budget was also available immediately on CD-ROM and on the Internet. The GPO prints congressional bills and reports, passports and Civil Service exams, the last of which is done under tight security at the Denver plant. It turns out postal cards, congressional stationery, White House invitations and menus, and the Supreme Court briefs of the Justice Department. It also runs 24 bookstores in major cities, including Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, San Francisco and Seattle. The subjects of the publications for sale cover an eclectic mix of titles and are reasonably priced. Take, for example, the publications recently displayed in the window of the GPO bookstore near the White House. A number of the titles are clearly self-help and offer practical advice on a variety of problems--``Eat Right to Lower Your Blood Pressure,'' ``A Working Woman's Guide to Her Job Rights,'' ``Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know'' and ``Safe and Smart: Making the After School Hours Work for Kids.'' All cost less than $10. Other titles clearly appeal only to wonks, such as ``Investigating the Year 2000 Problem: The 100 Day Report,'' a summary of findings by the Special Commission on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. History is also well represented in the offerings: ``Boston and the American Revolution,'' ``Rise of the Fighter Generals, 1945-1982'' and ``The Three Wars of Lt. Gen. George Stratemeyer: His Korean War Diary.'' There are also art books such as ``Language of the Land: The Library of Congress Book of Literary Maps'' and titles obviously geared to children, like ``My Wetlands Coloring Book.'' The GPO maintains a list of its monthly bestsellers, and among the 1999 winners were ``21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs,'' ``Buying Your Home: Settlement Costs and Helpful Information,'' ``Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents'' and the ``The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.'' Overseeing the operation is Michael DiMario, who was named public printer by President Clinton in 1993. He is the nation's 23rd public printer, chief of an agency that dates to the Civil War era but has changed substantially with technology. ``The computer has changed everything and is now fundamental to the printing process,'' said DiMario, a lawyer who has worked in various posts since joining the GPO in 1971. The only linotype operator left in the 33-acre facility is the one who sets type for book titles in gilt. ``In the late 1960s we moved into electronic photo composition, and the computer was used to compose data for printing,'' he said. ``Today our presses are controlled by the computer.'' Even though the computer now does much of the work, however, human skills--such as a broad knowledge of government, its lingo and methods of lawmaking--remain critical to the editing process. By DiMario's count, the GPO handles 50 percent of the government's printing needs. Notable exceptions are the nation's currency, postage stamps, Treasury securities and certificates, done by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing; and the classified documents of intelligence agencies. Since 1993, pursuant to a new federal law, the GPO has made the Congressional Record and other government publications available in an electronic format. In 1997, for example, the GPO and the Commerce Department teamed up to offer free Internet access to the Commerce Business Daily, which keeps tabs on government contract and subcontracting opportunities, small business and other set asides, special notices and sales of surplus U.S. property. Today thousands of publications are available electronically--far surpassing the number of print titles available for sale in the GPO bookstores. In fact, PC Week magazine in 1999 rated the GPO as one of the nation's top technology innovators. Every month, DiMario estimates, 20 million GPO publications are downloaded from the Internet. During the first hour after the release of the Microsoft ruling, 152,000 successful connections were made on the GPO's popular Internet information service. ``The GPO has about 100,000 titles on-line that are on our own server here, and we provide links through our Web site [www.access.gpo.gov] to an additional 60,000 titles from other agencies,'' he said. ``That's a moving target, and it is growing.'' The GPO's publications are also available in electronic and traditional print formats at some 1,350 federal depository libraries. These are located at most colleges and universities, many public libraries and state and local government libraries. Switching to electronics and decentralizing production has caused a massive reduction in the number of employees at the GPO complex, for many years ranked as the world's largest printing plant. This record, DiMario concedes, now probably belongs to private-sector companies such as Chicago's R.R. Donnelley & Sons. ``When I came here in the early 1970s, we had 8,500 employees,'' recalled DiMario. ``Now we have 3,300 employees. Primarily the change occurred early when we retired the traditional letterpress operations. This transition continued, especially after Congress required the agency to acquire as much of its printing as possible from the private sector.'' In recent years the GPO has contracted out 70 to 75 percent of its printing. ``We have 10,000 contractors on a bid list to do this work,'' said DiMario, ``and about 3,000 participate on a regular basis through the central office or the 20 regional and satellite printing procurement offices.'' During the early years of the Reagan administration, labor relations at the GPO were stormy, with proposed furloughs and pay cuts as high as 22 percent. Things are much quieter now; prominently displayed on DiMario's office wall is an award from the Printing, Publishing and Media Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America citing him for ``maintaining equitable management relations.'' Fatkin has seen the GPO go through many of these changes. Hired by the GPO in 1971, his job at first was to repair linotype machines. ``Everything switched over after the computer hit big time in 1981,'' recalled Fatkin, who describes himself as a printer-proofreader. ``There was a lot of ongoing retraining. The trouble today is that new people come in who can type 100 words a minute [on a computer] but don't know type faces and sizes. You learn that as an apprentice printer.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand in support of a minimum-wage increase. The original bill, H.R. 3846, falls short of meeting the needs of the American family and that is why the Traficant-Martinez amendment is needed. A full-time, year-round minimum-wage worker with a family of three earns about $2,000 less than what is needed to live above the Federal poverty line. Our economy is the strongest it has been in years and these American workers deserve to share in our prosperity. That is why I support the Democratic substitute by my California and Ohio colleagues which increases the minimum wage instead of from 3 years to 2 years over the period of time. More than 11.8 million workers will benefit from this increase. In my home State of Texas, 13.3 percent of the workforce stands to benefit from such an increase, and that is over 1 million workers. That is why an increase will give not only my constituents but also hard-working Americans the chance to earn a livable wage. We had a great Senator from Texas named Ralph Yarborough. When he debated the minimum wage, he said, it is time we put the jam on the lower shelf for the little people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republican majority and the Democratic minority passed with no negative votes the removal of caps on the Social Security earnings. But it seems the Republican majority did not learn how to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis. Today we have a Frankenstein piece of legislation. None of the parts fit together. Even the names do not fit. Bipartisan legislation should be what is on this floor, but instead we have a budget-busting tax cut that does not even help small business. I support a minimum-wage increase. The Republican proposal falls short of meeting the needs of the American family. The Republican leadership is more willing to push a budget-busting, debt-increasing $123 billion tax cut that will go to the top 1 percent than to help American small business with a reasonable tax cut. We are presently enjoying one of the strongest economies ever, but the benefits are not flowing fairly to both the working people but also to the small business. We need to bring legislation to this floor that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that is sensible and responsible, not one that is just going to increase our debt. Hopefully, we will see the error of our ways and reject this Frankenstein piece of legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague again, because there is no doubt that this Congress needs to address a broad range of health care. We have a bill that passed the House, that is a strong Patients' Bill of Rights; and we need to take one step at a time, Mr. Speaker. If the conference committee will come out with a strong Dingell-Norwood bill just like passed this House, then we can put this issue behind us and we can address health care for veterans; we can address mental health and get on to other issues that are important. But, first of all, when people pay a premium, they have to make sure that they receive the health care that they are paying for; and that is what is so important about this Patients' Bill of Rights. They have to know that when they pay the money for their premium, that they are getting health care and not just getting a denial slip or delayed health care, because someone is making a decision that they are looking at the bottom line instead of the health care of that person. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank not only our Democratic leader, but also the colleagues of mine who have been here tonight.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Houston. That is so true. That is why this is not an issue of economics or demographics or anything else, whether one makes $100,000 a year, $25,000 a year. If one is in an HMO, one's health care can be delayed, it can be denied, unless we pass a strong managed care HMO reform bill. One of the issues I talked about a little bit earlier, and I want to address particularly, because I do not know if my colleague has heard about it, but I have, and particularly in meeting with some of my employers in the district, and that is again, their fears that they will be sued. I want to quote from the bill, section 302 of the bill that passed this House that says: nothing in this subsection should be construed as a cause of action under State law for the failure to provide an item or service which is specifically excluded under the group health plan for the employer. It does not authorize any cause of action against the employer or other plan sponsor maintaining a group health plan or against the employee of such person. The intent of this legislation is not to sue the employer or sue the employee of that employer unless they are making those medical decisions, unless they are involved in it. Again, my real-life experience before getting elected to Congress is that employers do not make that kind of decision. Employers go out and buy an insurance plan, what they can afford; and they do not decide whether someone should go to this doctor or that doctor or this hospital or that hospital. That is up to the plan to make that decision, with the premiums that they charge. So this bill actually prohibits lawsuits against the employer or the employee of that employer, based on health care, unless that employer is making that decision. Again, that is not the case. I do not know how we can make it any stronger. Frankly, during the debate last year on this legislation, I asked some employers, I said, if you can make it any stronger, please give me the language and we will make every effort to put it in. I never received any language. So this bill, the Dingell-Norwood bill, does not allow for employer lawsuits. So that is one of those straw men that get thrown up oftentimes during legislative debate. But managed care reform, real managed care reform, over 80 percent of the people support: Democrats, Republicans, Easterners, Westerners, Midwesterners. And that is why this Congress needs to pass it. If it is not in the year 2000, then hopefully the voters and the folks will remember this November that this Congress needs to be responsive to their requirements, particularly when we see 80 percent, and we hear the examples that we have given today and heard about. That is why it is so important that this Congress address a real Patients' Bill of Rights and include the 5 issues that we want to make sure they have: independent appeals, so they can get a timely medical decision; that we can eliminate those gag clauses; that we can have access to specialists; like my colleague said, women can go to their OB-GYN, not only for a specialist, but for their primary care; adequate emergency room service, and again, the example of not having to pass by an emergency room, or going to an emergency room with pain and then the doctors find out that you have some other illness and say no, you should have gone to your regular doctor. That is not the case. The issue is that they were experiencing pain originally, and whether it was the thyroid or heart or whatever should not matter. The last point, the best one, we can pass all of the legislation that we want in this bill, but if it does not hold the medical decision- maker accountable, if the person is telling that person no, you should not get that test, if that person is not accountable, and again, they have been accountable under Texas law now for 2\1/2\ years and we have not seen a huge number of lawsuits. Again, Texans are not normally shy about going to court if they feel that they are aggrieved. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) brought up those because oftentimes to pass legislation we have to show the public support and, like the gentlewoman said, over 80 percent support now for a real Patients' Bill of Rights and managed care reform. We have to show the need for it, not just the public support. The gentlewoman's example of the three people she gave, particularly the last one, and March being colorectal cancer month it is so important that we look at our family history and that HMO and the physicians need to look at that so someone can go and be screened to make sure, because colorectal cancer like anything else, the earlier the detection the more chance there is of survival, and the less money it will cost for treatment. All of us do lots of newsletters, Mr. Speaker, and I know I read all of mine, particularly the ones that people write in and give particular opinions. So we sent one out and had town hall meetings in January and February of this year and so some interesting ones came back, particularly on HMO reform, and to point out the need for it. This person from Humble, Texas, part of the district I represent, every time I get my referral, my 6-month referral for my cancer, I get a 9-month checkup not 6 months as I should get, and a lot of things they should pay for they will not. Instead of a person obviously who has had a history of cancer and has to go back, should be going back for every 6 months, her HMO says, no, she has to go back every 9 months and she has to get permission even to go back for that 9 months. That is what the Dingell-Norwood bill would change, that that person should go back and get that checkup and they should not have to go back to their gatekeeper before they can go to their oncologist or their specialist, hopefully for a 6-month checkup instead of waiting another 3 months for it. Another from north side Houston, in fact an area where I grew up, why cannot our family doctor have more control over us in the hospital? Please answer why that is the case. Well, what happens with HMOs is that they will assign a physician to someone and their family doctor or their gatekeeper that they have selected oftentimes loses that control. Let me give an example of what happened in my own district. We had an individual in Pasadena that the HMO doctor came in, the family doctor or their gatekeeper said this person actually was terminal, with cancer, and the HMO doctor came in and said, you need to be released, you cannot go here and if you come back to the hospital you have to go across town. So those constituents contacted our office and they expressed, our father is terminal and even our family doctor said he should stay in. After talking to that insurance company, they understood the error of their ways and they agreed to let that patient stay in there. A person should not have to call their Member of Congress to get adequate health care. We should be able to pass the legislation, have the President sign it and they should not have to do that so that HMO doctor, who was assigned, cannot go in and say you need to be released, not consulting with the family doctor. That came again from North Side Houston. I had another case in Pasadena. East End, in fact we share near East End where our new ball park is going to go up and the Astros are going to have their opening game, make HMOs accountable for better care. They have had horrible experiences. This is from Hagerman, near East End, almost in the district of the gentlewoman, but part of my district in East End Houston. Again, these are newsletter responses that come back and say how they need. Remove restrictions that HMOs and PPOs place on doctors. Again, the gag rules that are placed on them and also the restrictions that a doctor cannot say what to do. That is why this House last year passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights bipartisanly and that is why the conference committee hopefully will, as we say in Texas, get up and do what is right. We need to do what is right and pass something for the whole country, not just say in Texas. I imagine the percentages in the district of the gentlewoman are the same. Two-thirds of the insurance policies in my district come under Federal law and not State law. So only a third of the people have the protections they have. Two-thirds of the people need us to pass a bill that is as strong as the bill for Texas, that they did in Texas, and that is why it is so important.