Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House of Representatives a recent article about the wonderful medical advances at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. The article tells the stories of two people, a young college student and the former Speaker of the House Jim Wright, dealing with cancer of the jaw and their experiences with this once debilitating disease. Their respective stories highlight the need to support our Nation's cancer centers and highlight how medical advances can truly give Americans hope where none previously existed. Reconstructing Lives by Mary Jane Schier-- For 19-year old James Smith, the quality of survival from cancer of the jaw is paramount in order to pursue his dream of playing professional football. Smith is a junior majoring in health and human performance at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, LA, where he was an outstanding defensive tackle until diagnosed with a disease uncommon among teenagers. He and his family were stunned to learn in November 1998 that he had a tumor in his right mandible, the horseshoe-shaped bone that forms the lower jaw. the mandible, he knows, is the largest and strongest bone in the face. Smith was forced to take an extended timeout from the football team to begin the biggest challenge of his young life. Upon coming to M.D. Anderson, he joined a new team whose members are nationally ranked for treating head and neck cancers. The head coaches in the multidisciplinary treatment regimen that Smith received are Dr. Helmuth Goepfert and Dr. Geoffrey L. Robb, who chair the Department of Head and Neck Surgery and the Department of Plastic Surgery, respectively. For the coaches and their specialty colleagues, the common goal centers on removing patients, cancers and restoring optimal form and function. Smith's surgery 3 days before last Christmas involved cutting out his diseased jaw and reconstructing the mandible with bone and tissue taken from his left leg. Although he couldn't talk or eat his favorite pizza for a while, Smith says now, ``I'm getting stronger every day . . . and I'm eager to play again.'' At the other end of the age spectrum is former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright, who at age 76 also illustrates the importance of high quality in one's life. I've always been a talker, so I was a little concerned before the surgery that I wouldn't be able to talk well enough for people to understand me,'' confides Wright, a Fort Worth Democrat whose 34-year span in Congress was complete in 1989. During more than 13 hours of surgery at M.D. Anderson last March 12, Wright's cancerous right mandible, an adjacent segment of the tongue and eight teeth were removed, then a six inch piece of bone from his left leg was used to form a new jaw. Skin from his left thigh overlying the bone was also transplanted to replace part of his inside of his mouth and tongue and the external skin of his cheek. ``Believe me, I feel truly blessed,'' Wright says in a strong and clear voice. His gratitude has been enhanced by recalling how his father lost a jaw to cancer more than 30 years ago. ``There was no thought then of replacing it with bone from somewhere else in the body . . . (He) spent his last days with a facial disfigurement that was the mark then of many cancer victims,'' Wright remembers. This was Wright's second bout with an oral cancer. In 1991, he had surgery at M.D. followed by radiation treatments. Since his latest extensive surgery, he has resumed most of his favorite activities, including writing a regular newspaper column and, of course, ``talking with anyone who'll listen.'' Intensive collaboration among head and neck surgeons and plastic surgeons in recent years has ``greatly improved our ability to resect all sizes of tumors and to restore vital function and appearance as well as to extend survival,'' observes Dr. Goepfert, who holds the M.G. and Lillie A. Johnson Chair for Cancer Treatment and Research. New methods developed by plastic surgeons permit reconstruction of the oral cavity safely and with increasingly good outcomes. The key to success involves transferring tissues--together with vital blood vessels and nerves--from elsewhere in a patient's body to use for rebuilding parts of the head and neck affected by cancer. Dr. Robb explains, ``The head and neck is the most difficult area to reconstruct. But through specialized Micro vascular techniques, we can move tissues, muscle, fat and bone, along with their blood supply, to use in reshaping jaws, the tongue, and parts of the nose, ears, and throat.'' Age is no obstacle for performing big reconstructive procedures so long as older patients have good blood vessels to transfer with the tissues. Regardless of age, Dr. Robb says, ``Our primary aim is to restore form, contour and function to the body parts affected by cancer surgery so that patients can enjoy the highest quality of life.'' For Wright, being able to talk, chew, swallow and look virtually normal is a ``miracle'' stemming from remarkable medical progress and his religious faith. ``The good news is that cancer is conquerable'' and ``useful life is prolongable.'' Realizing the best quality of cancer survival for Smith, however, will occur when he can return to the football field. During a recent follow-up visit to M.D. Anderson, his doctors encouraged him to continue that dream.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Let me just continue a little bit before we get into our unfinished agenda, and talk about the proposed 1 percent across-the-board cut, what would be cut. For example, work study, a 1 percent cut across the board for work study would cut $9 million out of it. For title I again for the educationally disadvantaged, $78 million. We have more children and more children, so many children who are not served by title I already, that it would go backwards literally. The 1 percent cut would cut, for example, FAA operations, $59 million; Coast Guard operations, $25 million; Federal aid for highways, $262 million. So there are so many things that they would cut. EPA grants for wastewater and drinking water treatment, $32 million. I could just go on and on down the list. Again, military personnel, their 1 percent cut would be $739 million. Again, that was quantified to say it would be 35,000 military personnel that would not be there if we did that across-the-board cut. So again, I would say yes, 1 percent is not bad across the board, but let us not cut the good with the bad, let us cut the bad out, and that is our job as Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the unfinished legacy, so to speak, of this Congress is, first of all, prescription drug benefits that we were hopefully going to get as a Medicare drug prescription benefit. It was killed this year. There are actually a number of different proposals, at least on the House side. We have one by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and a host of other Members, that would not cost a dime of Federal dollars, it would just let the Federal Government, through HCFA, to negotiate, just like HMOs do now, just like the VA does, like anyone does for bulk purchasing. And to save money for seniors on prescription medication. That was not even considered on this floor except when we brought it up as an issue. The Patients' Bill of Rights, which is again, near and dear to our hearts, because we spent so much time in talking about it; again, both of us serving on the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman chairs the Health Care Task Force of the Democratic caucus. The Patients' Bill of Rights was killed for this year, and now I am sure it is on life support maybe, because we passed a good, strong bill out of here. But when we saw the Speaker's appointments to the Republican Conference committee of 13 Members, only one of them voted for the bill, only one voted for the bill, and that is frustrating. Now we have a weak bill that the Senate passed, and we have a very strong bill that the House passed; and yet here in the House, even though we had a strong bill, only one Member of the conference committee, of the majority, voted for the bill. So I am worried that not only has it been killed for this year, but we may see it killed for next year. The other thing I think we have talked about, and we have talked about all year and we were hoping we could get something done with it was the minimum wage increase. We have had the greatest economy, literally, in our history, the longest running, and inflation is not a problem; and yet sometimes the folks in the lowest level of workers are the ones who are being left behind. So there has been serious talk over the last 3 weeks on the minimum wage, and there was effort to do something, but we have been here since January, and that bill has been talked about and has been introduced. So a dollar for the people who are not on social services, but are working, a dollar increase over 2 years only seems to be beneficial not only for the country, because that dollar, those folks are not going to take that $1 an hour more and go buy stock with it, although that would be great, they are going to pay more on rent, buy more food, so that dollar will circulate within the economy. Again, a dollar increase in the minimum wage, I am sorry it did not pass this year. Maybe, again, we will do it next year. I do not think any of us would serve in the Congress if we were not optimists to say we could do better the next year. Campaign finance reform. Again, a very good issue that the House passed, a very tough bill; and now it is sitting somewhere over in the Senate, and there will not be any campaign finance reform bill for this year. Again, maybe next year. I feel like sometimes I am a football coach saying wait until next year; we will do better next year. But we are not playing football; we are dealing with people's lives here, and that is important. Smaller class sizes for our public schools. Again, 94 percent of public education money is spent by local and State governments; only 6 percent on the Federal level. We are not talking about a large Federal commitment. But we also know that our local school districts and our States use Title I money; they use this Federal education money to help leverage what they do for the classes and the schools that need it the most and the children that need it the most. Again, my wife is a high school algebra teacher and most of the smaller class sizes we talk about, kindergarten through elementary school, kindergarten through third grade or fifth grade, but one cannot teach algebra to 35 students; we need a smaller class size, hopefully 20 students where one can really deal with the complications. The last issue, and I know I like to talk about this too because a lot of people think sometimes as Democrats and Republicans, well, the Democrats, they do not really want tax relief. Sure, I would love to have tax relief. I do my own taxes and let me tell my colleague, I would like to simplify and make it a lot easier. But there are things that we could do for targeted tax relief that we had as part of our legislation, and again, it was not even seriously considered. The only thing that was considered was that $800 billion over a 10-year period that would literally take the heart out of Social Security and Medicare efforts. Not only that, but also in military spending and everything else that is the responsibility of our country. Let me just finish by saying a couple of weeks ago, and I have used this before, the reason the managed care issue was so important and why it passed this House on a very bipartisan vote is it was illustrated by Newsweek, ``HMO Hell,'' and the number of people who are going through that. And they are frustrated because they have some type of insurance, whether it is through their employer, whether it is maybe they pay part of it through their employer; and yet when they go receive that type of care, when they go get that care, they are somehow eliminated from it or delayed. Our bill would eliminate the gag rules where a physician or a doctor or a provider could talk with their patients. It would make the determination of medical necessity not by a bureaucrat or someone answering a phone, but by someone who actually knows that individual patient. Outside, an independent appeals process, a swift appeals process which will make sure that people do not have to go through HMO hell. Emergency room care. Instead of one having to drive by one's closest emergency room, if someone has an emergency, maybe one has heart trouble or chest pains and going to the hospital on their list, one can go to the closest hospital and find out if it really is an emergency and if one needs to be stabilized. That would help stop having to go through HMO hell. The last one is accountability. That is probably more important than almost any of them, because everybody ought to be accountable in their jobs. The gentleman and I are accountable to our voters every 2 years. I tell people my contract is renewed every 2 years, so we are accountable. Because if we make a vote up here that our constituents do not like, then they have the right to vote against us. Hopefully, if we do something they like, they vote for us, so it comes out even. But on accountability, the people who make the medical decisions need to be accountable and, ultimately, that means the courthouse. Now, part of accountability is a good, strong independent appeals process, but we found out in Texas that we have a good appeals process, but the reason it is successful is we have that backup. If the appeals process breaks down, one can go to court. During over 2 years of our Texas law, we have had 250, 300 maybe appeals, just hundreds of them filed and over half of them are being found in favor of the patient, but we have had less than five lawsuits. In fact, three of those five I understand is by one attorney in Fort Worth, Texas, for whatever reason. So there have not been many rushing to the courthouse. So if we had strong accountability, we would then keep people from having to go through HMO hell, and that is a bill that I know the gentleman and I talked about all year and last year and maybe even the year before. Because we have not passed it this year, after the New Year holiday, after we celebrate the holidays and the new millennium, hopefully we will come back and be able to pass a real strong HMO reform bill, patterned after a lot of what our States have, particularly in Texas. That is why I think the unfinished agenda is so important for us. We do not want to just point at the other side and say, hey, you are doing wrong; let us see what we can all do right. We could do right on managed care reform; we could do right on prescription drug medication; we could do right on a minimum wage increase; we could do right by education, for smaller class sizes; and we could do right by passing a strong campaign finance reform bill, again, that would eliminate the soft money that we hear is so bad. Although again, the gentleman and I do not benefit from that as individuals, because we are under the caps like everyone else is, but that soft money that goes to the party structures and whoever else, and even the independent expenditures from people who maybe if they do not like how the gentleman voted on a bill or they do not like how I voted, they can spend literally millions of dollars trying to defeat us without knowing who is actually spending it. That is why we need campaign finance reform. People should have the right to know who is doing it. There are a lot of things that we did not do this year, and I appreciate the gentleman setting aside this special order again, even though it is in the middle of the day instead of late at night to talk about the unfinished agenda. We did not do very good this year, but we will do better next year, we hope.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciate both of us being able to do this this afternoon. Typically this time of day we would be voting and not just talking about issues. But in following up our Republican colleagues for their hour that they had talking about both education, how important it is to them, and you and I will spend most of our time talking about the unfinished agenda, the issues that we would have liked to have dealt with that necessarily did not even have Federal dollars attached to it. For example, their talk about the 1 percent cut. They were saying how we can find 1 percent in every agency. I am sure we can. But I also know that some of the appropriations bills that they have put in, they have projects in there that should be cut first and not across the board. My argument is if you just cut 1 percent across the board, if you have a wasteful project in there, you still have a 99 percent waste. Maybe it is a carrier we do not need that was added because of the Senate or someone. Maybe there is a certain project in a district. If it is 100 percent waste, if you only cut 1 percent, they are still getting 99 percent of it. That is what bothers me about that. They are saying we could find 1 percent. Sure I could find 1 percent but I would not cut, for example, title I funding in public education. Sure, I would not mind cutting the Department of Education, some of their other programs, but I know title I money goes to the classroom. Just in the last couple of days because of the budget negotiations between the President and the administration and the Congress, we have added substantially new money to title I. That did not come out of their committee. In fact, their appropriations bill for education did not even come out of the committee from what I understand. It was the last issue they dealt with. So hearing someone stand up here and talk about they are for public education, in fact my colleague from Colorado who was part of that other hour, we had a quote last year saying that public education is the legacy of communism. One of the things I wanted to ask him when I asked him to yield just so we could say, is that a direct quote or was that said, so we could have the American people know where we all stand on public education and the commitment to public education. The 1 percent cut I think ideally, in theory it is not bad, but again if you have a wasteful project you are still having 99 percent waste. Let us go back in and cut that budget down and eliminate those wasteful projects so we do not have to cut the important things, so we do not have to cut health care for children or education for children. The other concern I have is they continually talk about dipping into Social Security. The gentleman mentioned that, as of October 28. We have some numbers that, of course, since we have so many different numbers that we have but this poster, I think, will show that the issue of Republicans and Social Security and what they did. You can tell that it is $21 billion like you quoted. As of October 27 or 28, it is $21 billion. To say that the White House or as Democrats we are trying to spend the Social Security surplus is ludicrous. Again, I think we ought to be able to have this debate on the floor and have our colleagues say, tell me, where did this $21 billion that is going to be borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund, it is not being taken out of the fund, it is being borrowed like it has been for decades. Should we stop that? Of course we should. But do not stand up here on the floor or spend millions of dollars on ads around the country saying that Democrats are spending the Social Security surplus when we are not. In fact, I think we could come back with a budget that would meet what we have in the budget surplus very easily and still address the needs of our country, the needs of the Department of Defense. In fact, I think it is appropriate that their 1 percent cut that they talked about, and again from Houston we do not have a whole lot of defense installations but we do have a concern about the defense of our Nation. That 1 percent cut, the effect of the Republican across-the-board cut on defense, and I am quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Of great concern for us today is the across-the-board reductions proposed by some Members. This would strip away the gains that we have made or what we have just done to start readiness moving back in the right direction. In other words, Mr. Chairman, if applied to this program, it would be devastating. And so that is the direct quote from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our Republican colleagues who come up here and talk about, well, we can find 1 percent, sure. I could find 1 percent in the Department of Defense, but if we take a meat ax approach to it, we are going to cut about 35,000 service personnel. We cannot even staff the carriers in the Navy vessels we have now, much less adding a new one, yet they want to cut across the board. We would hope the Pentagon or the Department of Education or whatever agency would only cut that waste. But you and I know, it is our job to go in there and pinpoint those projects that really are not in the national interest and to do it instead of saying we want you to cut that 1 percent, leaving that up to the agencies. The other concern, we talk about dipping into Social Security, we have another pretty good quote that follows up on that. When they talk about cutting, at one time it was a 1.4 percent across-the-board cut in military spending. The response from the Republican majority leader is, ``Instead of having two colonels hold your paper, you'll have only one.'' Granted I do not want two colonels up here holding somebody's paper, but I know when our troops are out in the field, whether they are in Bosnia, Kosovo or anywhere else that they go for our country, I want them to have the resources that they need to do the job, plus I want to pay them. I want to pay them a decent amount. Again on a bipartisan basis, this Congress passed a pay raise for our military personnel, so hopefully some of the enlisted personnel will be able to get off public assistance if they have family. That is why I am glad to follow up my colleagues. I would like to debate the intensity on education particularly, but since they would not yield to me earlier, and again I would love to yield to them to talk about public education and what the Department of Education does. This year alone, this Congress passed a reauthorization for title I funding. Title I funding goes to help the schools. They have the poorest and the hardest to educate children. This Congress passed on a bipartisan basis the reauthorization. In 1994 when I was on the Education Committee, we passed on a bipartisan basis a reauthorization for title I. So instead of coming in and cutting and saying education funding is wasteful, let us go in and say, okay, let us take out what you consider wasteful but let us make sure we do help with smaller class sizes, that we do help children who English is not their first language, that that is what we do on the Federal level. We do not provide the education opportunity on the Federal level. That is for the local and the State. But we can assist local and State agencies, our local school boards, because they are the ones having to make the decisions, our State agencies are making the decisions. But we can do it on a national basis. If we go in and always attack the Department of Education and want to abolish it and they do not do any good, that is what we hear from the other side so often. But let us go in and say, cut out what you do not think is a priority in education. The problem is that sometimes what they want to cut out is our meat and potatoes. They do not want title I, they do not want bilingual education. That is what bothers me again about having an hour to listen without having a chance to do the debate. I know you and I really want to talk about the unfinished agenda, which in some cases will not cost one dime more of Federal tax dollars. I also have some of our things that are left buried for this year.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I tried to get my colleagues to yield a few minutes ago. And typically on this floor we have that courtesy between one another so we can debate the issues rather than just to hear the rhetoric, which is what we heard for that last hour. They were not willing to do it. And so, as much as I would like to and I know my colleague would yield as a courtesy to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), maybe next time they will know that this is a two-way street up here, even if they only have a five-vote majority.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, they do not let the gentleman from New Jersey and I bring bills up on the floor.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said, we will, like the Terminator, we will be back. But it would not hurt me if we stayed a few days to get some of these things done. The gentleman and I know, if we have not done them in the 11 months we have been here, we are not going to do them in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for asking for this special order on the ``unfinished agenda.'' I was in my office returning phone calls and I know the gentleman talked about prescription drug benefits for seniors. One of the calls I was returning was a senior who is in an HMO and he joined that HMO because they did have a prescription drug benefit. Now what we are seeing is they are raising the deductibles and lowering the maximum they will cover. So unless Congress reacts, then the HMOs who got a lot of seniors to join because of whether it be for glasses or some other benefit that is not covered by Medicare, we will see even more seniors who do not have some type of copay or prescription drugs. This person said he liked his doctors, he liked his hospital, but he just could not afford to continue paying because HMOs are raising the deductibles and dropping some of the coverage for Medicare. The unfinished agenda I think is important to talk about it, because not that I do not want to go home and we do not want to go home. In fact, I go home every weekend and I enjoy it. I get to see my family and I love the district I represent and to do things in that district. But there are some things that we need to do and I think we could have gotten to them before the middle of November. In fact, our original adjournment date was the end of October and we missed that, but we could tell earlier in the year that the way things were running it just was not working. One of the issues that I did not hear talked about that we hoped we would see is a minimum wage increase. The have the best economy in our history, but we still have a lot of people left out. Typically, the unskilled, the people at the literally lower level of the economic scale and they are not benefitting from that. They cannot invest in new stock offerings or take advantage of some of the things that are happening, but a minimum wage increase will see that benefit to them. So I talked to a lot of my own constituents and some businesses who said we do not know if we could afford it. And I said this is the best economy that we have seen in years. So we have not dealt with that. I know the controversy is whether they will have a dollar increase over 2 years versus 3 years, but the concern I have is the sweetener on that minimum wage increase. We are in a legislative process. There is not purity. We have to get enough votes to pass something. So I understand we would have to have some tax relief. But it needs to be paid for. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) had a minimum wage increase in 2 years with $30 billion in tax relief, but it would have been made up by not going into Social Security or borrowing more money from Social Security. Because I agree with my colleagues that we are not spending Social Security up here; what we are doing is a continual borrowing from it. And whether we as Members of Congress this year or next year or 20 years from now, whoever is here, we need to make sure that the Congress then pays back those debts to Social Security, just like they would pay it back to us if we had a Treasury note or someone in Europe or Japan who happened to invest in the government securities of our country. Social Security needs to be paid back just like every other person who loans money to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage increase was just left out. And, again, we are talking people who are working hard. We are not talking people who are on public assistance. Workers at minimum wage with two children in the family, they are still well below the poverty line. That is why I think it is bad we did not take it up much sooner and seriously discuss it in October and early November. Let me talk about the managed care. I know that some time has been spent on it by my colleagues tonight, and the gentleman from New Jersey served on the health task force, he is the Chair of that in our caucus. It worried me when the Speaker appointed only one Member to the conference with the Senate that voted for the bill. Today, I think Congress Daily said the Speaker's office said, well, his concerns and reason there is not going to be any more people added to it, only one person who voted for the bill that passed on a bipartisan basis on this floor, is that he is concerned about coverage. They want more people covered. Great. I would like to do that too, and I think we share that. But let us not try and eat the whole apple at one bite. We have to deal with people who are fortunate enough to have coverage now and make sure they have adequate coverage. I would like to, tonight or tomorrow, start drafting a bill that would talk about expanded health care, because I come from a district that is traditionally underserved and we have a lot of employers who cannot afford insurance. Or maybe they do pay part of it, but their employee has to pay part of it. That employee, if they are minimum wage or a little higher, they are busy just trying to cover their weekly needs, rent and fuel and insurance. Not health insurance, but insurance on their car, because it is mandatory in most of our States to come and go from work. So people do not have that. So I would like to start on that, and I would wish they would not use the managed care reform bill as the whipping post, because that is what they are doing. I do not think they have any seriousness about expanding coverage. Managed care needs to be dealt with as its own issue, because those are people who are fortunate enough to have some type of insurance. And, again, I speak from coming from the State of Texas where all the protections that we passed on this floor, they are already in State law and of course have been for 2 years. Eliminating the gag rules between the doctor and their patients. Outside swift appeals process. Medical necessity. Making sure the doctor is the one making that determination. Accountability. Accountability for those medical decisions. Again, I know the fear is we are going to see lots of folks go to the court house. In Texas, we have not seen that run on the court house. In fact, I do not think there is more than half a dozen, or not even that many cases, that were filed simply because the appeals process works. They are finding over half the time in favor of the patient and not necessarily for who made that decision in the HMO bureaucracy. The other concern we have as part of our bill is that patients do not have to drive by an emergency room to get care. If the HMO may have been fortunate enough to make a deal with an emergency room that is 15 miles away and the patient is having chest pains or breaks a leg, then, sure, they want to go to the closest emergency room and then be transferred. But our bill provided for that. That is why it worries me that we are going to see not only a weak bill that the Senate passed, we passed a strong bill here, but the majority, the Republicans put again out of 13 conferees, I think only one voted for the final version. I think that sends a message to the American people. And I hope they continue to remember, and I am going to be here as long as I can over the next few weeks and next months when we come back to talk about how real managed care reform needs to be passed and that is an unfinished agenda we have for this year. Frankly, we could have dealt with that much earlier if it had not come up in the middle of October. The gentleman from New Jersey and I are members of the Committee on Commerce, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. It would have been nice if we would have held hearings on the bill, instead of waiting to September to have a few hearings on it. This was such a major issue last session of Congress and in this session of Congress, it should have been dealt with in the spring and maybe today we could be congratulating ourselves on the agenda that we did accomplish. So that is what really bothers me. The tax cut; I know we spent so long this year talking about this hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. And, again, I sometimes have constituents who come to me and say, ``Wait a minute. We want you to talk how we understand you. Do not talk in `Washingtonese.' '' and I tell them, ``With my accent, I do not think anybody would say that I talk in `Washingtonese.' '' But one of the things that I asked some folks, I said: Wait a minute. If this tax cut was so important and it was such a great political issue, why did we not have a veto override vote here on the floor of the House or the Senate? Why did we not have an effort to do that? I think when I went back home in August and when our colleagues went back home and talked to a lot of people, they found out that the tax cut was not the top of the agenda for most folks. Health care concerns, education concerns. The economy is good. They did not want Congress to mess things up because the economy is so good for such a large percentage of the American people. So maybe it was that we spent so much time this year talking about this huge tax cut that, again, it would have literally devastated our country. I think over the next 10 years, because the demand we had, we have a growing country. That is great. We have growing demands both for our military, defense, we have growing demand for the INS, for the Border Patrol. We have a growing demand, and so many people say, ``Sure, I would like to have a tax cut. But I do not want them not to be able to staff an aircraft carrier,'' although I hope we do not build one that we do not want. ``I want to make sure that our military personnel have a pay increase,'' and that was part of the bill that we did pass. That is one of the few things that I think we could say that we finished and it was passed and signed by the President. So lack of a real managed care reform effort that should have started earlier this year. Prescription drugs is something that we have been talking about on our side of the aisle for over a year, and it is beginning to hit because again a lot of the seniors who are fortunate enough to have an HMO which has prescription coverage are now seeing that benefit reduced. Hopefully not eliminated, but reduced. And we need to solve the problem before it becomes such a crisis for our seniors. It is already a crisis for at least a third of the people who have no benefit at all. Again, coming from Houston, I have seniors who are willing to drive to Mexico, which takes 6\1/2\ hours. But most people cannot afford to do that, whether it be physically or financially, to go down to buy cheaper drugs, or to go to Canada in the northern part of our country. Social Security Trust Fund. The safeguarding. I know we talked about that earlier and we have not had any long-term safeguarding. But I would hope that maybe when we come back after the holidays and New Years, and of course next year is an election year and people say Congress does not do anything during an election year. I hope that is not the case. Hopefully, we will respond to the demands of the American people, one, because of the managed care reform needs and also a prescription drug benefit. The President has a proposal that would expand Medicare coverage. But there is a bill that our colleague from Maine and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and a bunch of us signed on to that does not cost very much Federal money a lot all. All it would do is allow HCFA to negotiate just like HMOs now do for reduced medication costs for their seniors who are members of their HMO, just like as the Federal Government, the Veterans Administration does. They negotiate with prescription drug companies to be able to reduce prescription costs to veterans, because that is part of the service that is provided for our veterans who served our country. Mr. Speaker, that would have so little Federal cost that it was something that we really should have been talking about in the spring and say, hey, let us see if this works. Let us at least have some hearings on it and see where everyone sits down and comes around on it. If there is a problem, let us try and fix it. That is what the legislative process is about and that is what we have not been doing for this year. Again, I am disappointed because I have served a lot of years as a legislator and I enjoy problem-solving like some of my colleagues on the Republican side, but we have not had that opportunity this year. Let us problem-solve with managed care reform, prescription drug benefits and a minimum wage increase. However we have to couch it to make sure it can be beneficial to so many people. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for taking the time tonight and asking for this special order, but also to say we know we have not finished our job. And as much as I want to go home and be with my family in Houston, I would like to be here to get our job done. And if we could stay for another week, I would be glad to take up prescription drugs and HMO because it would be a much nicer Christmas for the American people if we had something to take home to them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerning H.R. 2116, the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act. As my colleagues are aware, I have been a strong supporter of veterans since my election to this House. However, this bill, hastily added to the schedule today, could be unfair and detrimental to veterans in the State of Texas. Section 206 of this bill would reorder the priorities under which state veterans' homes currently receive VA state home construction grants. Under the current priority scheme, Texas would likely receive grants for seven State Veteran Home projects. Our projects hold spots 3-9 on the VA list that was published on November 3 of this year. Section 206 could reduce the number of State Veterans' Homes Texas would receive. Texas has the third largest veterans' population in the nation, and that population is aging. Until last year, we had never received any funding for these grants. We received grants for four last year, and while those funds have helped, the need for additional homes is still great. I understand that the new priority scheme would prioritize funding for upgrading existing facilities where there are safety concerns. This is a difficult balance to strike, but what stands out to me is that this process is already underway and the State of Texas has already made plans for these homes. Now we want to change that process in midstream and this legislation would make no accommodation for that. Nobody wants to vote against veterans health care, so I would urge my colleagues to delay this legislation so that we can reach an agreement that would treat all of our nation's veterans fairly.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Wisconsin. I agree that, hopefully, we will all be out tomorrow evening so we can go home and celebrate our Veterans Day programs in our districts and honor our veterans because of their commitment to our country and our freedoms. I am here tonight to talk about an amazing announcement today that literally made the headlines on newspapers all over the country. What do the American people mostly Democrats and also a significant amount of Republican Members know that the Republican leadership does not seem to know? Well, that is an open-ended question and it may take more than my 5 minutes to answer, but I will do it as best I can. We want doctors and patients, and not HMO bureaucrats, to make the medical decisions. Today one of the Nation's largest HMOs, United Health Group, took the first step in recognizing the error of their ways. They decided they would no longer review each treatment recommendation made by a physician. With the active support of the American people and the HMO reform conference committee, hopefully this will just be the first company that will do that and will proceed to have some real true HMO reform. One company in the insurance business recognized what Democrats and the American people have known for years is that the most qualified people to make medical treatment decisions are the patients and doctors who know the details of that specific case. Before we claim victory, we have to recognize that this is only a first step and in some ways a very small step. Instead of reviewing the cases as they come in, the United Health Care has decided to review their physicians once a year. This is much better, but it still raises some concerns. One of the problems can be, that in reviewing a doctor's treatment decisions in this manner, it may be nearly impossible to determine the case each doctor has and whether there is specific reason such as treating a high-risk patient or children that led the doctor to prescribe more tests than another doctor. Again, this is a first step and a good step, but we still have got a long way to go. Other HMOs need to follow United's lead and every HMO, including United, needs to commit to leaving medical treatment decisions to the doctors and the patients without interference. This recent decision by United raises the broader question of HMO reform and whether it is still necessary if other HMOs follow United's lead. The short answer is yes. The truth is that most HMOs are good. Managed care is created to take the ever increasing cost out of health care. But what we have seen is that not only have they taken the cost out up until this year, but they have also taken the quality out. According to United, they approved 99 percent of the claims that their doctors had recommended. So what they found out is that they created a bureaucracy that they were paying for, that they approved those claims. What is so important is that the patients' bill of rights that this House passed on a very bipartisan vote is still needed to protect the population who find themselves in an HMO that may not be as responsive as United is or as realistic as United that actually looked at it and said, hey, it is not cost effective to continue to do this. As long as the industry continues to operate in their unregulated vacuum, these nonresponsive HMOs will continue to pop up and take advantage of the unsuspecting consumers. The scariest part of this scenario is that these unsuspecting consumers will not know that they are in such an HMO until it is too late. There are a lot of laws in this country that are designed to protect the majority from a small percentage of offenders. Most of us would not think of taking money from a person in return for a service but then when they come to collect what they paid for, deny, or worse in some cases, even delay that service. But the HMOs accept the premiums from consumers, but then deny or delay benefits in the hope that the consumer, who is really now the patient, will just give up and go away. They need to be held accountable for these deplorable actions. I have an example of a constituent in my district. If you are familiar with Houston, she lives in the north part of Harris County. She had an appointment with a specialist in her neighborhood near Intercontinental Airport in the Humble area twice and it was canceled by her HMO. Finally they assigned her to a specialist across town. She said it was just difficult for her to be able to have family take her across town when literally there was a hospital complex that was so close she could get to. Again, it was delayed twice and ultimately could be denied because of transferring her to a specialist across town. No other industry enjoys the protection that the HMO industry does from Federal law under the ERISA act. With this shield they are able to ignore the needs of their patients and they are held accountable to nobody. What I hope we would do as a Congress would be to respond and hopefully the HMO conference committee that we have will be responsive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased to support H.R. 3075, the Medicare, Medicaid and State Childrens Health Insurance Program Refinement Act of 1999. This bill takes an important first step towards ensuring that cancer patients have access to the best medical treatments available. Under the BBA of 1997, the Health Care Financing Administration was directed to develop a hospital outpatient prospective payment system (PPS). Under their original proposal, reimbursements for cancer drugs would have been dangerously low--potentially denying Medicare patients access to the most effective treatments. However, under H.R. 3075, our nation's seniors with cancer will be protected because our nations cancer hospital's, including MD Anderson in Houston, will be exempt from the PPS for two years. This additional time will give the medical community and Members of Congress time to evaluate the plan based on actual practices in other hospitals across the country. Moreover, because HCFA has recognized the flaws in their original proposal, they have committed to redevelop the PPS to better reflect the needs of Medicare patients everywhere. According to HCFA, they are preparing to substantially increase the number of payment categories for cancer drugs, which will better reflect the high cost of innovative treatments and new drug therapies. This bill is better than nothing--but leaves a lot of issues neglected including senior citizen prescription medication needs and making medicine better serve the needs of todays and tomorrows senior citizens. Today represents the way this process should work--Congress and the Administration working together to meet the needs of the American people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed a few weeks ago the HMO reform bill, we thought our day had finally come. But this week we learned that the vote was really only the first step. The Republican leadership appointed the conference committee to negotiate with the Senate with only one member who voted for HMO reform. Instead of responding to the needs of the American people, the Republican leadership has chosen a path to ignore the will of the majority of this House and the needs of the American people. This week's Newsweek magazine cover story talks about it: HMO Hell. How much longer does the Republican leadership intend to keep American families living in this HMO hell? The bipartisan bill that passed this House overwhelmingly would provide for no gag rules, direct access to specialists, a binding external appeals process, access to emergency care, but also the accountability of that decisionmaker. Let us see if we can make them hear, if not this year then next year. We want to get out of HMO hell.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) because they are the ones that wanted to cut defense spending by 1 percent last week. What I am here today about concerns what we are seeing that is happening. Despite a strong bipartisan vote in favor of HMO reform, the overwhelming and public support across the country, the leadership has shown it is still looking for a way to cut and eliminate real HMO reform. The Republican leadership scheduled a bill that automatically linked to it a Patients' Bill of Rights, supposedly their patient access, but the House spoke by a bipartisan vote and passed a bipartisan measure for real HMO reform. Now we see the Republicans have stacked the conference committee with only one Member who voted for the bill, only one Member. What is so sad is that they are overruling the whole majority in this House. Clearly, our fight for HMO reform is just beginning. We may have won the first battle but we have a big battle to go. By appointing only those Members who oppose it, they want to bury it again. They are neglecting the American people by a large majority, and this House, by a large majority, wants binding external appeals. They want open communication with our doctors and patients. They want accountability to whoever makes those medical decisions.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am from Texas. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and profound sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the life of Virginia Priscilla Wooten of Jacinto City, Texas. After living a remarkably accomplished life that spanned 72 years, Mrs. Wooten passed away on July 1, 1999. She was born in Lynn, Massachusetts, on January 1, 1927. Even as we mourn her passing, everyone who knew Virginia should take comfort in the truly incredible life she led. We extend our heart-felt sorrow to her loving husband, Hershel Wooten. Virginia was preceded in death by parents Shirley and Dorothy Bates; sisters Shirley Barbou and Diane Bates; brothers Jack Bates, Lawrence Bates, Aubry Bates, Francis Bates, Edwin Bates and Reginald Bates. She is survived by husband Hershel Wooten; sons Robert Wooten, Ronnie Wooten and David Wooten; daughters Linda Wooten and Carol Wooten; brother Randy Bates; sisters Irene Poole, Barbara Calef, Sally Brown, Sandra Richards, Ilene Gallo and Joan Bradley; five grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. It has been said that the ultimate measure of a person's life is the extent to which they made the world a better place. If this is the measure of worth in life, Virginia Wooten's friends and family can attest to the success of the life she led. Mr. Speaker, I ask all the Members of the House to join me in paying tribute to the life of Virginia Priscilla Wooten. She touched our lives and our hearts, and she will be greatly missed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and allowing me to speak on the rule for appointing the conferees to the conference committee. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of H.R. 2723. This was a bipartisan vote as it passed this House. I would hope our conferees, as they are named, would remember that this House sent that bill to the Senate with a strong majority. It was a bipartisan majority because it addressed the issues that dealt with managed care reform: an outside appeals process, obviously to eliminate the gag rule, also allowing where a reasonable person or a medical necessity could be included in there. The most important, and I know this will be the toughest issue on the conference committee, was the accountability section in there. And, again, going on the experience that Texas has, it does not do any good not to have the ability to go to the courthouse. Because, ultimately, that makes the appeals process work. In the State of Texas, in the last 3 years that we have had our bill, we have had actually about half the cases that are being taken to the outside appeals process are being found in favor of the patient. Even a little bit more, 51, 52 percent. But the important part is that the insurance companies then will let that person have that care that they need. And the ones who are losing, well, they have already laid out that they could not make a medical case even to the outside appeals, much less to go to the court. But without the threat of the courthouse there, if people do not have that right, then we do not have that appeals process. And I think we will not have a lot of lawsuits filed. In fact, in Texas we have had, I think, no more than five; three by one attorney, I understand, in Fort Worth, Texas. So we have not had a groundswell of lawsuits. I would hope our conferees would remember how strong this bill came out of the House and how it spent a whole day debating it. I know it is a hard issue, but for the people in our country, we need to make sure we stay as close to the House bill as we can. So I support this rule.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for allowing me to speak. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the resolution. Coming from Texas, I noticed a lot of the cosponsors of the resolution are from Texas. There are a lot of things we hold sacred in Texas and one of them is high school football. One can go to any Friday night game or Saturday night game and it is important to the community, and growing up in Texas and having an opportunity to play high school football I know how important that event is for the community. Since then, I have attended football games both as a State legislator and Member of Congress and participating in the pre-game ceremonies, including giving the prayer as a Member of Congress at some of our high schools. This last February, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe versus Santa Fe Independent School District caused a great deal of concern and ultimately with this coming school year I talked with some of our superintendents in my own district to see how they were dealing with it. This ruling, while affirming previous court decisions that upheld student-led nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer at solemn events like school graduation ceremonies, also stated that invocations before sporting events like football games were not constitutional even if they met that standard. Mr. Speaker, the courts have been clear on the issue that the guidelines that had previously been issued by the Fifth Circuit Court in Jones versus Clear Creek Independent School District were being followed, so we have a problem. The Supreme Court needs to rule and provide that guidance not only in Texas but hopefully the whole Fifth Circuit and our whole country. If this sort of activity is constitutional before a graduation ceremony, it should be constitutional. If we in Congress can start our business day as we do, then why would it not be constitutional to pray for the safety of our young men and women before they participate in some sporting event? I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I oppose actions that would violate the establishment clause. I ask, though, where is this violation? How does a prayer before a football game act to establish a religion? We cannot go back to the 1950s because it was wrong where children all recited the Lord's Prayer and we know that as a Methodist and Presbyterians, even Catholics, we have a different Lord's Prayer but I do think we can invoke the wish and the hope and the prayer for the safety of the participants.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for allowing me to speak today. This is something that is near and dear to each of our hearts as individuals. A few months ago, the daughter of one of my former constituents, her mother just passed away, came by our office and brought a box. She had been sorting through her mother's things. The box was easily bigger than the podium that I am standing at, Mr. Speaker. It was full of letter after letter from these sweepstakes promotors, offers for her mother. In each mailing was marked in bold print, ``You have won 10 Million Dollars'' or ``Urgent: Prize Claim Documentation Enclosed'' or ``Open and Return Immediately For Your Grand Prize.'' Not only had this woman's mother opened each and every one of these solicitations, but she had fallen into that trap. She thought, due to the tricky and often misleading wording of the mailings that not only did she have to purchase something to win, but by purchasing items she would increase her chances of winning. This daughter found not only this box of information, but lots of little things that her mother had bought and literally never opened. Each time she responded, each time she bought some worthless knickknack, each time she thought it would finally pay off, all that would happen is more solicitations came in the mail. It was a vicious cycle. Because if one responds to one, then obviously they sell one's name to other people and other groups. This is a clear example how the sweepstakes industry has taken advantage and exploited some of our most vulnerable members of our society. I even have one family member in my district who tried to get their mother off the mailing list until, finally, they sent a letter saying, I am sorry, mom passed away, and it took them two times to do that, to get them to quit sending her sweepstakes information, just so she would stop receiving these awful offers and sending them in. H.R. 170, the Honesty in Sweepstakes Act, will ensure that the same bold print, not tiny print that one cannot read, will be used to state that one is not a winner and that purchasing items will not increase one's odds of winning. It would require that a toll free number be displayed prominently on the mailing. Those who wish to not receive these mailings will be able to call that number and be removed from the company's mailing list. It also provides for penalties for companies that violate or ignore these rules. This is a good bill that will help protect not only all Americans, but particularly older Americans, many of whom are spending significant portions of their income on these sucker contests. It will be especially helpful to family members who are care givers to our senior citizens. I hope my colleagues will vote for its passage.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Industrial Areas Foundation Southwest Network and especially to one of their member organizations from Houston, The Metropolitan Organization, for their twenty-five years of service to the disadvantaged and underprivileged communities in the Southwestern United States. During their November meeting in San Antonio, the Industrial Areas Foundation will begin planning a ``Domestic Policy Summit'' to be scheduled in the Spring of 2000. We wish them success and look forward to their continued involvement in the issues important to our cities. For 25 years, grassroots organizations in communities across seven states have been working with the IAF Southwest Network to make a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The list of accomplishments is a lengthy one, and touches on many aspects of everyday life. In my home state of Texas, IAF Southwest Network has been involved in convincing municipalities to raise the minimum wage to a living wage; in improving the conditions in the communities along the Texas-Mexican border, the so-called ``colonias,'' many of which were without power, water or sewer services; fighting to bring health care coverage to the working poor; convincing the Texas Legislature to match federal dollars the Children's Health Insurance Program, ensuring that children in families up to 200% of the poverty line would have access to health care; securing millions of dollars in funding for after-school enrichment programs that keep children learning in safety instead of roaming the streets; providing job training for workers that lead to good jobs at good wages; and assisting eligible immigrants in acquiring English skills as well as assistance in preparing their application to become citizens. The Metropolitan Organization in Houston has been at the forefront of these efforts. They have participated in voter registration drives that helped register record numbers of new voters. They have also worked tirelessly to obtain funds for street improvements, parks and recreational centers, and libraries in low-income neighborhoods. Moreover, they have provided aid for those seeking to become homeowners, encouraging people to put down roots and contribute to the revitalization of their communities. Mr. Speaker, it is organizations like The Metropolitan Organization and the Industrial Areas Foundation Southwest Network that make our nation great. I commend them for their twenty-five years of hard work, and wish them success in their continuing effort to make democracy work for all citizens of our Nation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the latest Republican majority appropriations scheme. For weeks they tried to craft a Labor/HHS/Education spending bill that would be acceptable to the American people, and for weeks they failed. Everyone on Capitol Hill spends a lot of time talking about priorities. And to be honest, we all have the same goal--which is to convince the American people that we are really fighting for their priorities. But the old adage ``actions speak louder than words'' has never been truer. While the majority Republicans like to say improving education is one of their top priorities, how are we supposed to react when they use the money that was designated for education funding to offset the spending for their real priorities. For weeks Democrats have been asking the Republicans to show us their budget plan, and for weeks the Republicans have refused. Today, we finally see why. Under this bill, every education program will be cut by almost 1 percent. This may not sound like a big deal, and the Republicans will tell us all day that such a small percentage will not have a negative impact. Well what this bill will do is: Blocks nearly 300,000 students from receiving needed math and reading tutoring services under Title I; cuts $200 million from the class-size reduction initiative; and cuts after school care and programs for nearly 1,000,000 children. The Republicans claim this 1 percent cut will only impact government waste--is that what they think of our Nation's children? For weeks the Republican leadership has been delaying bringing this bill to the floor. Today, we learned why.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security program is one of our most successful domestic programs ever created. It guarantees retirement security benefits for millions of Americans, and yet what we are seeing now today as the Republican majority's budget process uses 17 billion in Social Security Trust Fund, this budget process did nothing for Social Security, did nothing for Medicare and hurts every family. The bill does not extend Social Security 1 day, 1 day, and it provides not one penny for a prescription benefit for Medicare recipients. The only thing it does do is it hurts every American family, but they did want to provide an irresponsible tax cut that somehow they forgot about the last few days. A 1-percent cut in the budget does not cut waste. Ninety-nine percent spending for a carrier that the Navy does not want and does not need is still 99 percent waste. What they are doing though is saying: well, we are not going to cut our pork; we are going to cut everybody. But let me tell my colleagues that carrier is still going to be built, and it is still going to be waste. The budget gimmick of putting off the research for medical with the NIH is atrocious. What they are doing is playing with people's lives that have cancer and diabetes, just to name a few.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for organizing this special order this afternoon, since Congress got out much earlier than we normally do, and to talk about Social Security. But because I, like a lot of Members, have seen, not only here in Washington but around the country, the ads that our Republican colleagues have that shows the Democratic Caucus squandering Social Security funds. I kind of laugh. The gentleman from North Dakota has been in our caucuses, and they are pretty boring compared to those ads. Obviously, I do not think they are getting their money's worth. In fact, some of us have said, well, we need to go to where they have those ads. But it is amazing to me that they would spend whatever they are going to do, the millions of dollars, to put those out in selected districts around the country when, historically, Social Security was not created with any Republican support. It has not been supported typically, in fact even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, has said that Social Security is something that he would not have supported. It is a falsehood on the American people. But since the 1930s, and following the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), and how important Social Security is, it is one of the most successful domestic programs we have ever seen. It guarantees retirement security for millions of Americans and health care benefits for the disabled. It also, as the gentleman from Texas said, survivors benefits for children, if a person who pays his Social Security dies, his children, until they are of age, can have some help in just surviving. So what we are seeing here today, instead of those ads that are saying something about Democrats challenging or threatening Social Security, I think it is ridiculous. I think the American people know that. What we are seeing, though, is the rhetoric for one side who is just about the biggest falsehood I have seen in history, because we know that threatening of the program is because of what is happening now with their budget projections. In the article of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), he has, CBO notes a planned use of $18 billion of Social Security surplus. It was $14 billion, but up here we change those numbers almost on a daily basis because of appropriations. As always, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leave everything to the last minute. So that is why we are here today looking at a Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill tomorrow that very well could go higher in Social Security numbers. Instead of $18 billion, it could go as high as $24 billion in using Social Security and trying to scramble to balance the budget. But even with that, even with going as high as $24 billion in using Social Security trust funds for their budget, they are still going to cut math teachers and reading teachers for public schools. They are going to cut veterans health care programs with that proposed across- the-board 1 percent cut. It was 1.4 percent 2 days ago. Now it is a 1 percent cut. But even then, they are still dipping into Social Security. We cannot allow that to happen. Social Security is simply too important, not just to my father who will be 85 years old and who benefits from Social Security, but not only for the baby boomer generation that we are members of, but also for our children and our grandchildren. Social Security is a primary source of income for two-thirds of all Americans over 65. Two-thirds of all Americans is the primary source. For one- third of seniors over 65, it represents 90 percent of their income. That is not just true for those recipients today, not just like my father or the mother of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), it is going to be true for our generation. Sure we have opportunities to save and invest and things like that. But, again, Social Security was created not to make one rich. I use the example, it will not buy one one's Cadillac, but it may buy one a used Chevy. That is what we need to make sure, that it is there for every generation, not just the current generation, but for every generation. It is more than a retirement program. It is a critical survivors benefits, as the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), said. One out of every five Social Security beneficiaries receive survivor or disability benefits. So many children in the United States receive some type of benefits from Social Security. It provides disability benefits for our Nation's workers. Three out of four of the workers sometimes can benefit from disability in some form. So where is the Republican plan to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund? Well, obviously from that article we see and the article we have seen, it really does not exist. Because, again, if it gets as high as $24 billion with the drastic cuts in programs and diversions of money, I guess what worries me is the 1 percent I am hearing today would be across the board. Instead of prioritizing our appropriations, it is much easier to say, well, I am going to let a $500 million aircraft carrier that the Navy does not want, we are going to cut it 1 percent. But we are also cutting math and science teachers and reading teachers in our public schools. While my Republican colleagues for months were proposing an irresponsible tax cut and talking about how they were really saving Social Security, but that is not so. Thank goodness the President vetoed that. They have not brought that up to try and override the President's veto. Maybe we need to talk about that sometime on the floor. They propose a budget that does not do anything to, again, reduce the class size, put more police on our streets. In fact, they are cutting the successful Cops on the Beat program. Computers in the classroom, like I said math and reading teachers, after-school programs, and, worst of all, they are proposing to cut immunizations for children with that 1 percent, yet still spend $24 billion of Social Security trust funds. Their budget plans leaves nothing for strengthening the fund. It does not leave anything to extend the life of Medicare Trust Fund or modernize Medicare to provide for prescription medication. Now, there is a plan that both the administration and Democrats have proposed that we have talked about to extend the solvency of Social Security to 2050 and avoid the difficult choice of reducing Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age of seniors. According to the primary estimates by the Social Security program's Office of Actuary, the administration's proposal would extend the solvency until 2050. This is an extra 16 years added to the program. The administration's proposal would devote the entire Social Security surplus over the next 15 years to paying down the debt held by the public. This would reduce the debt held by the public by $3.1 trillion over the next 15 years. We have a responsibility to take the necessary steps to make Social Security safe and strong, and not only for our baby boomers and our parents' generation, but also for future generations. Hard-working Americans pay a lot of their income into Social Security, both themselves and their employers, and they are relying on that program to make sure they are not in the poor house as they used to be before we had a Social Security program for our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we put politics aside and also put gimmickry aside and really get down to trying to do what we can to make sure we balance the budget and still provide for the safety of Social Security, and looking at the Medicare Trust Fund too, along with prescription medication. We can commit enough money to shore up both Medicare and Social Security. Again, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), for asking for this special order and giving us the chance to come and talk about it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I oppose assisted suicide. If I had the opportunity either as a Member of Congress or in a referendum, I would vote to make that illegal. However, I am concerned about the unintended consequences that this bill would place on providers and patients at risk, as well as preempt State laws that have already addressed this issue. All of us have had experience with very dear and close family members who have died and had to have hospice treatment. In my State of Texas, where a physician-assisted suicide is not legal, the definition of ``intractable pain'' and the rules that govern its treatment are carefully worked out and negotiated. Over the past years, the Texas Board of State Medical Examiners has modified their rules to fine tune them so that they will provide for best care for patients without undue interference. Our pain act was passed to reassure physicians that they would not have enforcement action taken against them if they prescribed a prescription for a controlled substance. Now I see we have a difference between the AMA and Texas Medical Association. Because before this act was passed by the legislature, many physicians were consciously undertreating patients because of the fear of State disciplinary action. I worried this would happen. That is why I stand in support of the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am following my colleague from Arizona on a regular basis here on our 1-minutes. Let me give some statistics that we are talking about when we are really talking about saving Social Security: the amount of the Social Security surplus the House Republicans have already dipped into, $14 billion; the amount of Social Security surplus House Republicans are on track to spend, $24 billion; amount by which the House Republican appropriations exceed the President's request, $14 billion; the Republican leader who said he never would have created Social Security, the majority leader, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Armey); number of days the GOP budget tax plan would extend the life of Social Security, zero; the number of years House Democratic budget would extend Social Security, 16 years; total cost of the tax breaks that, thank goodness, the President vetoed was a trillion dollars, and that would have even been worse on Social Security. Let me tell my colleagues what we need to do. We need to add more teachers to our classroom, more police officers to our streets and the number of military personnel who would be cut by the Republican- proposed 1.4 percent budget would be 39,000 military personnel.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the entire appropriations process has been short circuited because of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. This is wrong. It is the very last appropriations bill that we are going to be considering. In fact, it should have been marked up and dealt with the first, instead of last. And here it is, being brought to the floor without going through the Committee on Rules. It was crafted in some back room, and it is squeezed into a conference committee report that was already vetoed by the President, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. Now, is that not the tail wagging the dog? Education appropriations is so important to the whole country, and yet we are going to piggyback the District of Columbia appropriations bill out of the conference committee. The bill has a 1.4 percent cut in education spending, which works out to be $400 million. The funding for education is $100 million below what the President asked for and $700 million below what our colleagues in the Senate passed. This bill would eliminate one of our most important initiatives, class size reduction, by making it into a $1.2 billion block grant. I had the opportunity yesterday to be in Houston before I came back to Washington, and saw the success of Title I funding and bilingual funding in our Houston schools.