Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague. Again, having served with the gentleman both in the State legislature, the Senate and the House, and now in the Congress, we have gotten to that point. Because as Texans we brag all the time about how great our State is, and sometimes we puff it up a little bit; but we are not puffing on this legislation. This has worked in Texas, it has provided the benefits, all the accountability, the outside appeals process, the anti-gag orders so doctors can actually talk to their patients; and it has allowed patients to go to the closest emergency room without having to drive by closer emergency rooms. So there are so many things I am proud of. Always proud to be a Texan, but particularly because of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I now want to yield to another good friend who I serve with on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. And I might just mention that her State, California, just recently passed a series of bills just similar to this, and I know Governor Davis signed them into law about a week ago. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before my colleague leaves, and I appreciate the gentleman being here, let me give some updated information on the appeals process in Texas. As of August of 1999, during the month of August there were only 23 requests for the independent review. But from November 1 of 1997 to the present, the total requests were 626 appeals in those 2 years. 610 of them were completed. The number they upheld was 47. The number of overturned was 46. And partially overturned was 42. So what we are seeing is about 50- 50 for the external appeals process. Again, they are not clogging up the process, but what they are doing is making sure people have a right to go outside and ask for an appeals process. They do not really want to go to court in Texas. The 2 years we have had that there have been so few lawsuits, but we have had a lot of appeals and people are getting the health care that they need and these appeals are being done quick. They ask for them, and they can complete them almost within that 30 days. So instead of waiting for 2 years to get to the courthouse, they are actually able to get that health care that they need. That is what is so important. Again, in the last 2 years since November, a little less than 2 years because the actual appeals process went into effect November 1 of 1997, again half the decisions are in favor of the insurance company, and about a little over half are in favor of the patient. So what that means is that I feel much more comfortable as a patient that, instead of the chance of a flip of the coin, that we have a better percentage of upholding HMO's decisions or managed care decisions if they had it. But they are losing about half of them in Texas, actually a little more than half. So that is why it is so important that we pass on a national level a real strong external review process backed up by the accountability. The reason we do not have the lawsuits in Texas and what is estimated by the people at home is that we have a good, tough external review process where people get their case heard, they get their health care; or they lay out their case, and they do not receive their health care because they are not entitled to it. It is tough to go to court after one has been through that external review process and find out that one really does not have enough that even an independent review does not do it. What worries me is that the Republican leadership this year, with what we are going to do tomorrow, there is going to be a number of other plans that will be considered, every one of them is found lacking in what we need to do. It is so important that we adopt the Norwood-Dingell bill, it is a consensus bill, a bipartisan bill, and attack or defeat the poison pills that are really there just to cloud the issue and not provide the health care that we need. Let me talk a little bit about the concern about one of the amendments to move these suits to Federal court. Again, in Texas, they go to State court. Again, having practiced law, I do not have a lot of Federal experience in Federal courts, but there was a reason for that. I would much rather go before judges that are elected than judges on the Federal level. My worry is, if we move these cases to Federal court, that they will be there for years and years and years. If they have to go to court, one needs to go the quickest one can if one has to. In Texas, we have not had but three or four cases, maybe five at the most, in 2 years. That is why moving to Federal court in one of the amendments tomorrow would be wrong. It would actually be against the patients ability to have justice. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from East Texas (Mr. Turner). Again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) served as a State representative in Texas, State Senator, in fact was a State Senator in 1995 when the first Patients' Bill of Rights was passed by the legislature and vetoed by the Governor at that time. But in 1997, he let it become law without his signature. I am glad Governor Bush did that in 1997 and saw the error of his ways.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The gentlewoman and I have both talked to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Lewis). He and I talked a little bit. He knows my affinity for Diet Coke, and I bet him some venison sausage from Texas against a case of Diet Coke. It looks like I may get that Diet Coke from Georgia.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding me this time and allowing me to say a few words about Jake Pickle. I have known Jake literally all my political life, I guess for over 25 years, having served in the Texas legislature since 1973 up until coming to Congress, and Jake was always the Congressman for Austin, Texas. Having served with Jake from 1993 until he retired, I cannot think of any other Member that deserves this honor of having a courthouse named after him more than Jake, because Jake was such a great Member. He served on the Committee on Ways and Means and he served his community well. I know in the past, when we have talked about Jake Pickle, I talked about his book, ``Jake,'' and it is a great compilation of stories of his service in Congress. And I was proud a few years ago, for Father's Day, that my daughter, who was at the University of Texas at that time, went over and bought the book and asked Jake to just sign it for me. Again, I want to congratulate not only the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey), but also the House for doing this for Jake Pickle.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just when Congress appears ready for managed care reform with the Norwood-Dingell bill, there is an effort to propose gimmicks and ways to poison the bill with harmful provisions that will wind up doing nothing for patients. For months, the Republican leadership has complained that the Patients' Bill of Rights would increase cost and open employers to unfair lawsuits, both of which would supposedly force employers to drop coverage. That is just not true. As a Northeastern Member of Congress said a couple of weeks ago, even Texas is a leader and California just passed a bill recently and the governor signed it, passed a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. My home State of Texas has passed many of the patient protections. They are already in place, including external appeals, accountability, and there has been no premium increase or exodus by employers to drop coverage. What Texas residents do have is the health care protections they need. Provisions included in this Patients' Bill of Rights should be extended to every American including eliminating ``gag clauses,'' open access to specialists, a timely appeals process, coverage for immediate emergency care, and holding the medical decision-maker accountable. Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray we are not headed for more delays and maneuverings and will pass a strong bill for our constituents.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for days I have stood here on the floor also sitting and watching on C-SPAN my Republican colleagues attack the President's budget and attack Democrats for spending Social Security dollars, and I knew they were playing fast and loose with their own spending plans. First, they declare the census to be an emergency so it does not come under the budget. Then they pass a tax cut bill that they promised but they cannot deliver on over the next 10 years. Then they float the idea that, well, we cannot do it so let us add a 13th month; some of the most ludicrous things we have ever heard. Now they finally are finding out that what they have been saying and the height of cynicism for our government is that they are spending the Social Security surplus, $18 billion. It is reported in today's Washington Post and we can see it here but I am sure it will be in all of our local newspapers. It is just in the national media and our local media, $18 billion in Social Security trust funds they are going to use. Yet they have been accusing the President and the Democrats of doing it. Why do my colleagues not grow up, and we will sit down and work this out between us instead of trying to make hype out of it? Why do we not just pass a bill that will take the trust funds out of the unified Federal budget?

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has unveiled yet another proposal they hope will derail the efforts for meaningful HMO reform. Just when a bipartisan majority has reached a consensus on real HMO reform with the Norwood-Dingell bill, the Republican leadership is once again proposing harmful provisions for Americans' health. The American people want HMO reform. Instead of figuring out how to solve this, they just add poison pills to their proposed legislation. For months, we have been hearing from the Republicans that a Patients' Bill of Rights will increase costs and open employers to lawsuits. Well, in my home State of Texas, we passed many of these patient protections; and we have not had any lawsuits against employers. In fact, the only increase that we have seen is the increase in prescription medication that other States have had to do. In fact, there has been no exodus of employers from providing healthcare in Texas under Texas law. What Texas residents have is health care protection and provisions that should be included in a national law. They eliminate gag clauses, open access to specialists for women and children, a timely appeals process, coverage for emergency care, and accountability for those decision makers in healthcare. It is time to stop stonewalling and support a real Patients' Bill of rights.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman. It is a pleasure to be here and follow my colleague from Dallas. I know people who watch C- SPAN or Members on the floor may know, Congressman Johnson and I were elected to the Texas legislature together when we were, I think we were only 25 years old at that time, in 1972, and served together, both as state representatives and state senators and now in Congress. It is my honor to follow Congressman Eddie Bernice Johnson from Dallas. In Houston typically we do not like anything in Dallas, but we appreciate the colleagues that we have. So Eddie Bernice, it is good to follow you on the floor. Let me just start off, because last week we had an event here which was a bipartisan press conference over at the Cannon Office Building, and there were lots of Members. If fact, there were Republicans and Democrats talking about the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights. Of course, it was hosted by Congressman Norwood and Congressman Dingell, our ranking member on our Commerce Committee, and I had the distinction to follow a Republican Member from New Jersey. All of us were giving our 30 second or one minute speech, and she said, ``Even Texas provided this.'' Well, let me follow up on that a little bit. I got to follow her and say, ``You know, in Texas we like to think we are leaders.'' I have to admit there are some things I do not want to be the leader on that we are the leader on, but in managed care reform we are, and I am proud that in today's newspaper, as we saw here, it was in the Houston Chronicle, said that the Governor of California just signed some managed care reform legislation, a number of bills, that would do lots of things, including the accountability that is so important in our legislation, and also for some of the issues you have talked about. So California passed the legislation. In Texas we passed it in 1997. A Republican state Senate and Republican state representatives passed this legislation. It meets the criteria, and all we have talked about is trying to do is use the examples of the states that have had success with these reforms, and, if it did not work, we did not want to adopt it. It worked in Texas, because we have had that law now for over 2 years, and I think we reported there are four lawsuits that are filed, and I do not know if one of them is the one that the insurance industry challenged the law on, so that may be one of them. But the most important part is that there are so many things, and I will get to it in a few minutes, about what we need in a Patients' Bill of Rights, not only accountability. If someone is standing in place of that physician, then they should also be accountable, just like that physician is. That is part of both the Texas and California law. But the reason we have not had those lawsuits is we have a really strong outside appeals process, where it is swift and a person can go without having to go to court, to hire a lawyer and go through all the problems and delays. They can go there, because they want healthcare. They can have an outside appeal by an independent body. They will say yes, that particular treatment is needed. In Texas, in the two years over the number of appeals that have been filed, the insurance carriers have lost 50 percent of them. They have lost half of them. You know what that makes me realize, is that if we had not had an appeals process under Texas law, then half of those people would not be receiving the healthcare that they paid for and that they need, and I use this as an example. If I was a baseball batter, you know, and if I batted .500, that would be great, if I batted 50 percent, but I would hope we would have a better percentage than flip of a coin when we are dealing with healthcare decisions. Again, the outside appeals process, if it is strong, you will not have to have the court battles, because people want healthcare. They do not want to necessarily go to court and wait 2 years-plus to be able to receive some type of care, because they need the healthcare. What I am concerned about is what has happened last session and what we are going to see next week, and I am glad the Speaker has set the time for the House to consider the Patients' Bill of Rights. The fear I know they have is it increases costs and opens employers to unfair lawsuits, both of which are supposedly to force the employers to drop coverage. That has not been the experience in Texas. What worries me is those two scare tactics and half-truths. Sure, I do not want my employers to drop their healthcare coverage, because that is so important, to have that third-party benefit that is part of an employment package. Particularly I do not want to have increased costs. To follow up what, as you and my colleague from Dallas mentioned, is in Texas, I do not know if it was 30 cents a month, because what we showed over the period of the year or the year-and-a-half that we can look at the numbers is that there were no cost increases for health insurance in Texas that were not matched by other states that did not have these protections. Prescription drugs went up. Certain costs were going up already for HMOs, so even though the Congressional Budget Office said that it would cost about $2 a month for the Patients' Bill of Rights, so, you know, I have heard the example that the cost for a Happy Meal you could get these protections. Well, in Texas it does not even cost the amount of a Happy Meal. So even if it was $2 a month, to be able to get fairness and protection and accountability for our health insurance, it is worth it. Again, Texas passed it. It included the external appeals and the liability provisions, the accountability provisions, and, again, the only premium increases were attributed to higher costs of prescription drugs, which is another issue that our House hopefully will work on. Moreover, there has been no exodus by employers to drop their insurance coverage because of the fear of employer lawsuits. There has not been one in Texas in 2 years. We have a pretty aggressive trial bar, having been a member of it before I came to Congress, and, believe me, if they had the opportunity, they would sue an employer, particularly a deep-pocket employer. But they are not, because employers are not being sued under this. Employers are not making the medical decisions and are not the ones liable for it. It is the insurance carriers and the people that they hire that are making these decisions. What Texas residents do have is healthcare protections they need and deserve and the provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights that should be extended to every American. Again, my colleague from Dallas talked about it. The Texas law and the California law and whatever state law that may pass only covers insurance policies licensed by that state. They do not cover 60 percent of my constituents who receive their healthcare under ERISA or self- insurance programs. They come under Federal law. So that is why Texas and California and the other 48 states could pass it, but we still have to pass it on this floor of the House, to make sure that all Americans have the same protections, including eliminating gag clauses to where physicians are free to communicate with their patients, open access to specialists for women and children, the chronically ill, so they do not need to get a referral every time. If I have heart trouble or have cancer, then hopefully I can go back to my oncologist or my cardiologist without having to every day go back or every time go back to my gatekeeper to get permission. So that way you speed up that healthcare. An external and binding and timely appeal processes that guarantees that patients have a timely review of those decisions. I talked about that earlier. The coverage for emergency care so families cannot be required to stop at the pay phone and get preauthorization before they get to the emergency room, and they do not have to pass up an emergency room to go to the one that is on their list, that they can go and get stabilized and if they need to have continued emergency care once they get stabilized, they can be transferred to whoever that HMO made that contract with. Also hold the medical decision-maker accountable. Again, that is one of the most important parts of any legislation. This is not a shift of medical decisions to the court, nor is it to put employers at risk. It will ensure that the people who may recklessly in some cases deny coverage are accountable for their decisions. I tell this story, and I have done it on the floor of the House and done it a number of times. I happen to be fortunate, my daughter just started medical school over a year ago, and so two weeks into her medical school career I spoke to the Harris County Medical Society and said she is not quite ready to do brain surgery, she has only been in the school two weeks. During the question and answer period I had a physician who is now serving as our president of our Harris County Medical Society say, ``You know, your daughter after 2 weeks in medical school has more training than people I have to call to treat you or your constituents.'' That is what is the problem. That is why we have to have accountability, not to the physician, but to the people who are making the decisions for that physician. Instead of recognizing the affordability and the value of the Patients' Bill of Rights, I am concerned that the Republican leadership may talk about a push to half fixes with loopholes in it. To be honest, after what we went through last year with the Patients' Bill of Rights here on this floor, I am concerned. Although, this year, we have a different Speaker. One does not serve in Congress if one is not an eternal optimist. We will see things change this year to where we will have a fair run with a decent bill like the Norwood-Dingell bill, I see the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) here, that has, like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) said earlier, almost every Democrat and a host of Republican Members, and how that is important. My concern, again, is that we do not have some rule. Again, earlier, we heard the gentleman from Texas from the Committee on Rules come in and talk about some of the rules that the Committee on Rules may put on us and limit our ability to actually pass a real strong Patients' Bill of Rights, or maybe add things to it that may not even be germane. Sure, I would like to have a tax deduction for health care insurance premiums, not just for sole proprietors, but for everyone. Because I have a district where a lot of our employers, particularly for lower wage workers, maybe $7 or $8 an hour, they may not pay the whole insurance premium for their employees. So the employee has no tax deduction for that. But we need to stop stonewalling and support the Patients' Bill of Rights and give us a fair run on the floor without any poison pill amendments that will make it so much worse. I know campaign finance reform, 2 weeks ago, we beat back every amendment that was, quote, a poison pill on campaign finance reform; and we passed a strong campaign finance reform to the Senate. I would hope we would use that as a guideline at least and pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights that will provide those protections for all Americans, and not just those who happen to have a policy that is licensed by the State of Texas or licensed by the State of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for this special order tonight. He must have worn out lots of pairs of shoes standing where he is at over the last 3 years. I appreciate him allowing us to participate in it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just briefly, during the memorial week break, I spoke to a lot of large employers in my district. It was organized by the National Association of Manufacturers. During the question and answers, that question came up. I said if they write the language, we could put it in the bill. I know there have been efforts by, not only the office of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), but also the main sponsors of it to ask for that language. So we do not have employers being sued for health care decisions unless they are the ones making those decisions. So far, all we hear is that they would rather oppose the bill; and I think that is wrong. It has worked in Texas, and it is going to work in California, and I know it will work throughout our country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment; but, first, I want to thank both the chairmen of our Subcommittee on Health and Environment and Committee on Commerce for the hearing today and also the commitment over the next few weeks to deal with this issue, at least through the committee process, and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member. This is one of the most important issues I think that Congress is facing, is how to provide prescription drugs at an affordable price to the people who need them most, our senior citizens. Several bills have been introduced to achieve this goal, but each has been met by critics who claim they are either inadequate, too costly, or unfair price controls. In fact, I am a cosponsor of the Allan- Turner, et al. bill that we had that my colleague from Maine talked about. In fact, to follow up on his, I have seen the Flo advertisements on TV, and I have a little concern. I want to make sure people in our country realize who is paying for that multimillion dollar campaign on TV. It is the pharmaceutical and drug companies. Because, obviously, they do not pay for that ad on TV in Canada or Mexico, where constituents in my district may have to go, oftentimes, driving 6 hours to Mexico to get their drug prescriptions at a cost they can afford. The Tierney amendment may help provide some answers to the concerns on affordability and which method would truly meet the needs of seniors. The fact is our Nation's health care system has dramatically evolved over the past 10 to 20 years to the point that prescription drugs are not only a major component of the health care system, but they can be critical to an individual's survival. Everyone agrees we need to find a way to make prescription drugs more affordable to seniors, who are least able to afford them but who need them the most. Seniors are being forced to choose between buying food or their prescription medications or even postponing taking their prescription medications. Instead of taking them one a day, as prescribed, they may take them every other day just because they cannot afford them. Because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs, so many seniors, 37 percent according to the GAO, but I think in my district it is much higher, do not have any prescription drug coverage and may incur these expenditures out-of-pocket. Worse yet, many of these beneficiaries have very limited coverage that do not even come close to meeting their medical needs. While I am sensitive to the need for drug manufacturers to make profits on their drugs, it is unacceptable that the bulk of these profits are made on sales to people who can least afford to pay those prices. Discounts are available to HMOs, to the U.S. Government, to hospitals, and even foreign countries, but seniors are forced to pay the full price. That is just not right, and something needs to be done to correct it. This amendment will give an important agency the opportunity to look at these issues and answer some of the questions surrounding them. Everyone knows this is a complex and difficult problem to solve. However, sitting back and doing nothing is not an acceptable option. Today, not only with this amendment, with this study, but also with what the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce is doing, we are moving forward on it. As new drugs are developed and approved, the access gap to these potential life-saving treatments are only widened. This amendment is reasonable and sensible, and I am glad to be a co-sponsor of not only this bill but also the Turner-Allan bill that will provide a solution to this problem. Support for this amendment is important to research and study methods and practices.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for months now we have been hearing from the insurance industry that we cannot pass a Patients' Bill of Rights because it would increase costs and open employers to lawsuits, both of which would supposedly force employers to drop coverage. Essentially, the insurance companies are trying to kill meaningful HMO reform with half truths and scare tactics. The insurance industry, managed care organizations, HMOs and even big businesses have repeatedly tried to scare the American people saying the bill would dramatically raise premiums and force employers to drop health insurance for their employees. The American people need to know the truth and that is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, after thoroughly analyzing each section of the Patients' Bill of Rights, has determined that the bill would cost beneficiaries less than $2 a month. In the State of Texas, where I come from, we have 2 years of experience with no increase attributable to the protections that we are trying to pass on the Federal level. That is right, for less than the cost of a Happy Meal, patients in HMOs would have what they really need, which is fairness, protection, and accountability. Another of the scare tactics is businesses will drop health insurance coverage. There has been no exodus by employers to drop health coverage in Texas after 2 years of the law. What we see is more States following the Texas experience. California just has, and what we need is to make sure we pass a law that affects all Americans and not just those under State insurance policies.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important appropriations conference report. Let me first thank Chairman Ron Packard and Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for their support and hard work. I also want to thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Chet Edwards for his dedication, hard work, and I especially appreciate his advice. Because of their efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation project has been appropriated the full $60 million needed to maintain the construction schedule of the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee has had the foresight to maintaining the optimal construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers an estimated $63.5 million in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annually in customs fees and $213 annually in state and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides $5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly or indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase safety and the economic viability of the port and the City of Houston. The citizens of Houston appreciate your confidence in this project, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 30 years of service Chuck Russell has provided to the children of Texas and our great nation. At the end of this month, Chuck will retire from his position as Assistant to the Texas Education Commissioner for Government Relations. Although Chuck has enjoyed his time in Washington, I am certain that he is looking forward to going home to Texas. Chuck has spent his career working tirelessly on behalf of all children. As a government affairs official, he worked to make education funding formulas more equitable. He facilitated discussions between the Congress, U.S. Department of Education, the White House, the Texas Education Agency and local school districts. He always promoted what was best for school children, never forgetting that they were the reason for him being here. Their best interest was his driving force. Chuck's education experience was not limited to government affairs. He has also worked as a special education teacher in Monterey, California and as a project director for the Texas School for the Blind. American historian and writer Henry Adams once stated that ``an educator affects eternity; he can never tell when his influence stops.'' For Chuck Russell, the lives he has touched over his many years in the education field will ensure that his influence carries on far into the future. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the career of one of Texas' education heroes as Chuck Russell completes his final days as an advocate for education. Chuck, we wish you and your wife Judy all the best.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today and say that I am glad the President is going to veto that tax cut bill, because talk about smoke and mirrors, over the next 10 years, they expect to have a $3 trillion surplus if the economy stays as good as it is today, and $2 trillion of that is Social Security receipts. The Republicans passed a $790 billion bill for a tax cut. That does not leave anything for Medicare; it does not leave anything for education. Of course, why should we expect them to plan for 10 years from now? Right now, the last appropriations bill we have on this floor, it is not even here yet, is the education funding bill. It should be first and not last. They are going to cut Federal aid to education dramatically to meet their caps, and that is what is wrong. That is why I am glad the President is vetoing that tax bill, because it does not plan for the future of our country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just before Congress recessed for the August break, the majority Republicans passed the so-called Financial Freedom Act. I think a more appropriate name for the GOP tax plan should be ``A Return to the Massive Annual Debt,'' or maybe ``The Medicare Elimination Act.'' I think the size of the GOP bill highlights the willingness to neglect the financial security of our Nation. Both Democrats and Republicans want tax cuts. The difference between the two parties is the Democrats want to make sure we save social security and modernize Medicare, including a prescription benefit for our senior citizens, at the same time trying to buy down our national debt, and, to follow my colleague, the gentleman from California, to make sure we modernize our military without adding to the national debt. The Republican plan is a financial irresponsible scheme which would lead to higher taxes in the future, slow down our economy, and force huge deficits and massive tax increases on our children and grandchildren. The American people know that the failure to address these issues today will only make the problems greater for the future. Whether we are talking about Medicare, social security, defense, let us not add to our national debt.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleague is correct, although Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest, when somebody in my district that is a blue collar worker gets a job at Johnson Space Center, they move to the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) or the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). They do not stay typically in my district in the inner-city. But it is important to those blue collar workers. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I hope when we do go to conference committee, that that funding will be restored. Point of Order

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) bringing her amendment. Service on the Committee on Science, I think points out the need for this. I have a district in Houston. It does not come close to the Johnson Space Center, but I also know the benefits that we all receive, even if we do not represent that particular area from both NASA and the science investment that NASA is doing and also the International Space Station. I appreciate the Committee on Appropriations adding the 400 additional million for NASA, however it still falls about a billion dollars short of what NASA needs to be an effective agency and to continue to be literally the world leader in preeminent space program. U.S. space program is the envy of the world, and I know a lot of Members get to visit with other countries, and oftentimes that will be sometimes the first issue they will talk about is the space program. The continued success of programs like the Mars Lander or the Hubble Telescope should not be halted because of shortsighted funds. We are just beginning to understand this great huge universe that we have, and missions to search for water on the moon or to find life on Mars is what is keeping our Nation's technology and academic advancements going. For the past few years I have had the opportunity, though, to have astronauts visit in the schools in my district. They will come in to our middle schools and talk about what they do and their job to encourage students to continue efforts or have an interest in math and science. So we are not just talking about dollars and cents when we are talking about the NASA budget. We are talking about the impact of having an astronaut or a contractor who works with NASA come to our schools and make our students realize how important it is to have math and science. Maybe we would have more math and science majors than lawyers, Mr. Chairman. Since I am a lawyer and was not good in math and science, maybe I needed an astronaut when I was in the seventh or eighth grade to convince me of that. The proposed cuts would eliminate a host of technology and research programs, and particularly at the Johnson Space Center in Houston in their research in astro materials such as extraterrestrial water that was trapped in crystals from outer space that just recently landed in West Texas, a meteor. The proposed cuts would scuttle any progress on the Mars exploration. Even though the Mars exploration is being done literally on the cheap right now, this would make it even worse. Space exploration is important and plays a critical role in our Nation's future, and I would hope that we would be able to, if not in this amendment today, then through the conference committee, restore the funding to NASA, because they have adopted a pretty good lean machine the last 3 or 4 years under Dan Goldin, and I think we ought to continue that success.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, only in this Congress, with a small Republican majority, would we experience the following: cuts in housing funds, cuts in science and space funds, cuts in education funds, no planning to safeguard Medicare for the future growth, almost $6 billion in national debt that is owed from the last 50 years, and the major issue we are talking about for the next few weeks is whether we want a tax cut. Let us be clear about the debate. I would like to have a tax cut, too, just like most Americans, but the biggest concern we have is making sure Social Security is there, Medicare is there, and that we also pay down the national debt. We cannot ignore those issues and only talk about a tax cut. The Republican plan for tax cuts is financially irresponsible. It only passed the House by a few votes and now they are going to use it for the next month to talk about how bad the President is. Let us put that aside and get on about our business of legislating. During the August recess, I talked to hundreds of constituents in my district in Houston, like people did all over the country, and they talked about the need to safeguard Social Security, Medicare, and pay down that debt.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2488, the so-called Financial Freedom bill. I only wish it were so. In reality, this bill should be called the Medicare and Social Security elimination act--because it irresponsibly spends the projected budget surplus without committing a single penny to the future of those programs. The decisions the majority have made will ultimately hurt the very people they say they want to help--the American people--by forcing through a tax scheme that place our nations economy at risk in the future. The fundamental problem with this bill is that it bets the future of Medicare and Social Security on economic projections ten years away. If we spend the money today, almost 80% of the projected surplus, on this risky tax scheme, what will happen if the projections fall short? Ten years ago, not a single economist could have predicted how strong our economy is today and has been over the last five years. As best they try, it is a very inexact science. In fact the Congressional Budget Office, whose numbers the majority is relying on, has been off by billions of dollars on even one year projections. Now they want to bet the farm on projections over ten years. If this bill becomes law, there will be an insufficient amount of money left over to ensure the long term stability of Social Security, Medicare, other programs such as veteran's health. Now don't get me wrong, there will be enough there to take care of today's beneficiaries. But without dedicating portions of the surplus to Medicare and Social Security today, we will force our children and grandchildren to either pay higher taxes or receive significantly lower benefits tomorrow. You just can't have it both ways--as much as everyone here would love to eliminate taxes completely, and believe me I would, it just isn't the responsible thing to do. Antoher major problem with the Republican scheme is that it fails to provide any money to pay down our national debt. If this bill becomes law, interest rates on car loans, mortgages, and credit cards could rise. Our nation's debt is finally going down--but if we follow the plan of the republicans, it will go right back up and fall squarely on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. We need to reject the Republican's risky scheme, because it could balloon the debt, send us back to huge deficit spending. We need to do the right thing and wait for the money to become real, see how much is there, and then decide where it needs to go--and at that time, tax cuts should and would be included in that formula.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week there was a newspaper article that highlighted one of the fundamental issues at the center of the HMO debate: Who decides medical necessity, an insurance company or our local doctors? A doctor was treating a pregnant woman who had obstetric coverage and needed a shot to protect her unborn baby from the chicken pox virus. Despite the fact that this shot is routine in this situation, and the fact that her insurance coverage also covered obstetrical care, her HMO refused to pay for that shot. The response by the American Association of Health Care Plans was that the decision to deny care was probably based on the fact that the service was not covered by that woman's health plan. Now it seems it is not enough simply to purchase a health insurance that covers obstetric care, but HMOs expect every employer in our country to make sure that every foreseeable problem or treatment is specifically covered. Obviously, that would be impossible, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that. If our insurance plan covers a medical condition, our doctor should be able to decide how to treat us for that particular medical condition. The right of doctors to determine medical necessity is one of the key issues that has been included in the HMO reform bill that is predominantly Democrat-supported.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have a saying in Texas, ``If it's not broke, don't fix it.'' Well, our health care delivery system by HMOs is broken. According to the day if you read almost any newspaper, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 87 percent of doctors said their patients had experienced denial of coverage over the last 2 years; 79 percent had trouble getting approval for a certain drug they wanted to prescribe; 69 percent had trouble getting a diagnostic test approved; 52 percent had trouble getting patients referred to a specialist. And now to bring you up to date, the Republican leadership announced their intention once again to bypass the committee process and take a managed care bill directly here to the floor. Once again they are starting down a road that ignores the American people. They are letting the HMOs write their own legislation. Once again they are writing a major piece of legislation in the Speaker's office without bipartisan support. Another Texas saying we have, and I think it applies, is that they are letting the fox guard the chicken house. What we need is real HMO reform, not a fake or a fig leaf.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and H.R. 2065, the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and also in support of the rule. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and also our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their continued support for the Houston-Galveston navigation project. I also want to thank all the Members of that committee, and particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his leadership. For two consecutive years, the Congress has appropriated sufficient funds to complete the widening and deepening of the Houston Ship Channel project in 4 years. This fiscal year, the $60 million appropriation in this bill ensures we will maintain the optimum construction schedule. Maintaining this schedule is important because it will add an additional $281 million to the project's rate of investment, return on investment, and save taxpayers $63.5 million in increased escalation and investment costs. The expansion of the Houston Ship Channel is important on many levels. The port of Houston, connected to the Gulf of Mexico by the 50- mile ship channel, is ranked first in foreign tonnage and second in total tonnage among U.S. ports and eighth in total tonnage among world ports. With more than 7,000 vessels navigating the channel annually and an anticipated increase over the next few years, the widening and deepening is a necessary step in safeguarding the safety and economic viability of the port and the city of Houston. The port of Houston provides $5.5 billion in annual business revenues, and creates 196,000 direct and indirect jobs. By generating $300 million annually in customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, the Houston-Galveston navigation project will more than pay for itself. I appreciate the subcommittee's support, and ask my colleagues to support both this rule and the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this time. In the past, I have always supported normal trade relations with China, and this year it is much more difficult because of the response of the Chinese Government and the people of China to the accidental bombing of the embassy in Belgrade. A country that wants to be our friend and partner does not use misfortune or tragedy as an opportunity to attack our diplomats and also to damage United States property. I have worked with companies in my district to expand their business in China. I expected a much different response from a country that has such a long history and is known for its courtesy. I hope the Government of China realizes they cannot expect our friendship and cooperation on one day and then attack our country's representative the next. Our balance of trade deficit with China bothers me a great deal. Knowing the state of our relations with China, it is not the time to revoke normal trade relations. We need to have cooler thoughts, both in our government and in China. By not renewing normal trade relations for this year, we invite international competitors to establish a stronger foothold while further isolating our companies in what has the potential to be one of the largest consumer markets. Again, our competitors are not as concerned about the human rights in China as we are. Also, we need to remember that this is just the annual renewal of normal trade relations with China. We have a lot of work to do before we admit China to the World Trade Organization, but we are heading down the right path, and this is one step in that direction. We will revisit this issue again, if not this fall, again next year. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this resolution.