Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the internet is a communications medium that has significantly impacted our day-to-day lives. With the click of a button you can do just about anything. You can write to your family and friends. You can purchase clothes and groceries. You can even listen to music and watch videos. There is no doubt that the internet has become one of our civilizations most important innovations. Unfortunately with these advancements come problems. One of the largest problems to face the internet is unsolicited bulk e-mail or spam. Today, I am introducing the E-Mail User Protection Act. Spam is a problem. It takes both time and money to wade through and delete these unsolicited messages. It is a problem which everyone agrees needs to be addressed immediately. This legislation attacks the problem by making the tools used fraudulently by spammers. First, my legislation makes it illegal to falsify any identifying information such as e-mail addresses or routing information. Second, this bill makes it illegal for a spammer to misappropriate or take over an unsuspecting person's e-mail account to spam others by subjecting the spammer to either a stiff financial penalty and/or possible jail time. Third, the legislation also requires spammers, upon the request of an individual, to remove them from their spam. Fourth, my bill makes it illegal to create, use, or distribute software that is primarily designed to falsify e-mail identifying information. Fifth, any violations of these provisions incurs a fine of either $50 per violating message or up to $10,000 a day the violation continues. This is an excellent solution to the spam problem. The E-Mail User Protection Act of 1999 will start to weed out fraudulent spam and eliminate any hassle to internet users. By this, we will help to continue the growth, prosperity, and innovation of the internet.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, juvenile crime today tends to be more violent and involves younger children than in the past. The recent tragedies involving school violence has prompted parents, teachers, administrators, and elected officials to work together and set the safety of our children as a national priority. Congress needs to get its priorities in line as well and act on legislation that would stop youth violence and make our schools safe. According to a 1995 GAO report on school-based violence prevention programs, successful programs have the following characteristics: a comprehensive approach; an early start and long-term commitment; strong leadership and disciplinary policies; staff development; parental involvement; interagency partnerships and community links; and a culturally sensitive and developmentally appropriate approach. I am proud to join my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Robert Menendez as a cosponsor of the School Anti-Violence Empowerment Act because it includes many of the recommendations of the GAO report. This bill would: Provide grants for school districts to hire crisis prevention counselors and fund anti-school violence initiatives. 50% of the grants would go to fund crisis prevention counselors and crisis prevention programs. 50% would go to school districts who would have the flexibility to spend these funds on projects which would best improve security at their schools. Increased funding for COPS. 50% of the funding would be targeted for cooperative school-police partnerships to place safety officers in schools. Implements after school and life skills programs for at-risk youth. Directs the Department of Education to work with the Department of Justice to develop a model violence prevention program for school districts to use. In addition, the Department of Education would create a clearinghouse of anti-school violence to allow school districts to see what types of initiatives are working in other schools across the nation. It is imperative that we implement aggressive and comprehensive approaches to keep our children safe. They deserve to have an educational experience free from fear or the threat of violence.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I will not take my full 5 minutes. In fact, I will condense it to Mr. Roemer's pending three amendments. I will rise in opposition to all three, but I will only speak once. I want to speak to the cutting of the funding, to the striking of the funding, or even to the reducing of the international effort in the International Space Station. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is a fine Member. I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that I hope I do not give the same speech every year because his amendments obviously I oppose. The International Space Station represents the future of space exploration in our country, and it represents a high tech lab whose innovations have countless applications in the daily lives of all Americans. It represents an era of international cooperation that everyone can benefit from. To date, the International Space Station has been a model of international cooperation and responsible management. If Congress does undermine the funding for the Space Station with an unexpected reduction, it would represent a major reversal and a commitment made to the program's stability over the past few years and it would be a betrayal to our international partners. Critics have said that the cost for the life cycle of the Space Station has drastically risen. It is just not true, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the cost for the life cycle of the station has only gone up 2 percent in the last 3 years. So that is pretty good compared to even our low inflation rate. We have also said that funding the Space Station would push out any smaller space exploration endeavors like the Mars Pathfinder Mission, the Hubble Space Telescope, that have enormous success. Again, this is not true. NASA, with the development of the Space Station, will have a platform from which future space exploration and research can be continued. We are standing on the brink of the 21st century and I hope that we will not look back to the last century by cutting the funding for the Space Station, the NASA scientists, researchers and astronauts. We do not want to lose the foothold our country has into the future. So I ask a ``no'' vote on all three of the Roemer amendments.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning. NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have benefitted our country and our economy. When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the world leader in space exploration. I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible amendments to the bill. First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed that they removed any funding for the continued development study of the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center. The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our astronauts more space to work and to live. One of NASA's greatest assets is their commitment to providing the private sector with technological assistance through the Technology Outreach Program. The program applies scientific and engineering innovations originally developed for space applications to technical problems experienced by other companies that are in all of our districts. Through the support of its own research laboratories, NASA has solved technical problems of businesses of all sizes and varieties, from making ink dry faster in the manufacture of American flags to improving the fit of a prosthetic foot. I also know that NASA provides educational assistance and leadership in math and science education and particularly at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. My district is not in that area but it is close, and over the last 2 years I have had two astronauts, Dr. Ellen Ochoa and Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, astronauts who took time to spend the day with me in middle schools in my district in Houston, and they motivate students to take math and science. The schools that participated include Grantham Middle School, Woodland Acres Middle School, Edison Middle School in Houston Independent School District, Burbank in HISD, Galena Park Middle School in Galena Park School District, and Hambrick Middle School. Watching these 7th and 8th graders, Mr. Chairman, with the astronauts is very rewarding and educational. It is my hope that when these middle school students go to high school they will then be energized to take math and science. Again, I reluctantly support H.R. 1654. I hope we will continue to work on this legislation and make it better by providing funding for the Trans-Hab project and for the Triana satellite.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1999, I missed four votes because I was unavoidably detained in my district. If I had been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 117; ``yes'' on rollcall 118; ``no'' on rollcall 119; and ``yes'' on rollcall 120.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that pays honor to slain law enforcement officials. Law enforcement officers place themselves in harms way every day to protect all Americans. Despite these inherent risks, peace officers go out and make our streets, our businesses, and our country safe. It takes a special person to respond to this call to duty. It takes someone with courage, honor, bravery, integrity, a sense of community, and concern for their fellow man. Today we come together to honor the memories of those men and women who have fallen while in the line of duty. We gather to remember and honor the memory of those law enforcement agents who made the ultimate sacrifice. There is no greater sacrifice than to lay down your life for your fellow man. Their sacrifices came while these brave individuals were doing their duty of protecting us, fighting crime, and making our community a better place. While today we honor the memories of those persons who have passed away, we must remember and never forget their sacrifice. The duty they felt will always be felt in our hearts, and will be carried on by their fellow officers, friends and family. Our hearts go out to the family, friends, and colleagues that have had to say good bye to a loved one. We are indebted to every spouse, every child, every parent, sister, brother, grandchild, aunt, uncle, and every friend of all those whom we come here to honor today. We pay tribute not only to those who have died, but to those who have lost them, to their survivors. And we pay tribute to the more than half million law enforcement officers who continue to go to work every day, not knowing for sure if on that day they will be required to make the ultimate sacrifice. Today, I would say that, more than anything else, we ought to rededicate ourselves to becoming a country worthy of the heroes we come here to honor. Every day, law enforcement officers take the oath to uphold the law and defend citizens. Danger is a constant companion; still, law enforcement officers go out every day carrying the badge that symbolizes their commitment. The job of law enforcement is so dangerous today not only because criminals are better armed, but because our society is too often coming apart when it ought to be coming together. And so today we must dedicate ourselves--all of us--to making America worthy of the sacrifice of the law enforcement officials who have fallen, and those who still risk their lives every day. I ask today that we remember the law enforcement officers and their families who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week we celebrated National Teacher Appreciation Week and paid tribute to the dedicated men and women who serve as teachers. Our teachers are hardworking professionals who are on the front lines of our struggle to provide a quality education for every child in America. They work hard so that our children can succeed in life. While it is important to recognize and acknowledge their hard work and commitment to educate our children, we must also provide them with the necessary tools they need to give our children a quality education. It is imperative that Congress pass legislation to provide the money to fulfill our commitment to IDEA so that learning disabled children don't lag behind nondisabled children. It is also important that we continue to fund afterschool programs, and class size reduction programs that will put 100,000 new teachers in our classrooms. Presently, Congress is considering the Teacher Technology Training Act, which would provide money to local school districts to train teachers in classroom-related computer skills, and the School Construction Act, which would help our teachers by renovating and modernizing the classrooms and facilities. In addition, the President's budget proposal provides for at least an overall 15-percent increase in education programs. These proposals will provide teachers the tools to raise test scores, student achievement, and graduation rates. However, most important for this Congress and vital for our students and teachers, is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The programs in ESEA are critical to the most disadvantaged students in our educational system. They include monies for safe and drug-free schools, technology education, infrastructure improvement, and bilingual education. In this week that we have set aside to honor our Nation's teachers, Congress needs to get its priorities in line and act on the legislation that would say more about our dedication to teachers and the education of our children. Our children and teachers need schools that are safe, modern, with small classes, and access to the Internet. The tragedy in Littleton, CO, showed the need for parents, teachers, administrators, and elected officials to work together and set as a national priority, our children.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because of the prior commitment of my daughter's wedding in Houston, I was not present for the final vote on H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Supplemental bill. If I had been present, I would have voted yes on final passage.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 118, except for my daughter's wedding I would have been present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I know we are getting close to the end of the hour, and there are things that can be done with modernizing and making Medicare more efficient. Of course we talk about prescription medication. It can save ultimately people from going to the hospital if they can take the full dosage instead of trying to self-diagnose and lower their amount. The President's plan of dedicating 15 percent of the surplus to Medicare. Let me say, and I know the dollars and the numbers are on our side, but let us realize the humanity of it. I use this example at my town hall meetings in Houston. My dad will be 84 years old this year. I did not know his father. His father died before I was born. He is part of the success of Medicare. If we can talk about our constituents, talk about our family, and instead of looking at what we can do to say, well, how do we need to save money in Medicare, let us also look at what impact that will have on our own constituents, on our own family. By living to 84 years, that is successful. He is a product of the benefits of our system, Medicare. His father did not have Medicare when he passed away in the late 1940s. We need to remember that. The better quality of life for our senior citizens, they have paid their dues, the World War II generation that my dad is part of. Let us remember those folks, that they are the ones that this was created for. It was created for that. Let us not forget those folks that are still providing for our country, that we want to make sure that they will have Medicare and a good Medicare program when they retire.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with my colleagues from New Jersey and from Florida. Medicare was originally created because of the failure of the free enterprize system for insurance. If I owned an insurance company, I would not want to sell insurance to someone over 65, although we do have some who only want to take the healthiest, as we know, because we cannot afford the premiums. Any actuary will tell us what is the quote of a premium for someone over 65, $1,500 a month, $2,000 a month, because they are ill. That is why Government had to step in, free enterprise could not take up the need for some type of health care for senior citizens. In fact, under the current system, almost half of all seniors have an income of below $15,000 a year. Approximately 10 million widows have an income of less than $8,000 a year. So this is not a program for the rich, as we sometimes hear we have all these rich seniors. Despite all the out-of-pocket costs that seniors already have to pay, 52 percent of Medicare's costs now go to 5 percent of the most sickest senior citizens. So we are not talking about a program for the wealthy. We are talking about a program for seniors who make less than or earn $15,000 a year under their pension plans or Social Security. Let me talk a little bit about raising the age to 67. That may be something that the actuaries can say, well, we are living longer. I do not know if we are living that necessarily healthier longer. Because I can tell my colleagues, in my own district, again, maybe it is the difference between someone who is predominantly a white-collar worker and somebody who is a blue-collar worker, I have a very industrialized district. They load the airplanes at Intercontinental Airport. They load the ships at the Port of Houston. They work in the petrochemical facilities. Those folks cannot wait, they are just barely waiting now until they are 65 so they can get Medicare. And also private business. If they have an early retirement and they have some type of retiree health plan, let us see what some of our large employers are going to do in the country by saying, by the way, their collective bargaining agreement is going to have to last 2 more years because once they become 65 their retiree health plan goes into Medicare. So raising it to 67 may be great for some folks. But if my colleagues have a district where people literally work with their hands, they are not necessarily getting healthier. Again, following my colleague from New Jersey when he said the proposed Commission plan only extended the life, at the maximum, of 2 years.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for requesting this special order. I think it is so important that we recognize the Medicare issue. Here we have a Member from Ohio, our ranking member on our Subcommittee on Health and Environment who requested this hour, a Member from Florida, a Member from New Jersey, and myself, I am from Texas, and it shows how it is not just a regional problem. The Medicare program has been so important since 1965, and I am glad we are taking time out at the end of the day to talk about it and to hopefully raise the level of intensity for not only senior citizens who are now Medicare beneficiaries but those of us who will grow into being Medicare beneficiaries over the next few years and realize the benefits of the current program. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Peter Deutsch), mentioned that Medicare does not pay for everything. In fact, it does pay for 80 percent. There are a lot of things Medicare should not pay for, but it does not pay for all the things that maybe health care should. One in particular, prescription medication, has risen now to a new level of importance, because prescriptions in 1999 are such that we do provide delivery. It saves ultimately on going to the doctor or the hospital, whereas in 1965 or 1975, some of the advances in medications were not there. So perhaps we should reflect and say, okay, let us do what we can do on prescription medications and provide some type of copay for Medicare beneficiaries and not necessarily force seniors into managed care, an HMO, simply because they are paying $300 or $400 a month for prescriptions. In some cases in my own district I have seniors who are paying that much, and their minimum benefits on Social Security are just a little bit less than that. So thank goodness the family is still together, the husband and the wife, and maybe the wife is the minimum beneficiary and they are paying her whole Social Security check just for their prescription medication. Medicare is such an important program. Again, it started in 1965, and I was proud that in 1965 it was Lyndon Johnson from Texas who originally proposed it, although it was not a new program. It had frankly been around since the depression, but it was enacted in 1965 as a national health care insurance program for people over 65. It was expanded in 1972 under a Republican administration to cover the disabled and the need for continuing dialysis, for permanent kidney failure, or a received kidney transplant. So over the years Medicare has been expanded to include disabilities. The United States public and private spending on health care far exceeds that of other industrialized nations by roughly a trillion dollars. Medicare comprised 11 percent, more than $200 billion of our Federal spending, and is funded by a combination of both general funds and payroll taxes. Current workers are taxed 1.45 percent of their earnings and our employers are taxed 1.45, where the self-employed are at 2.9 percent. This tax makes up 89 percent of the income for the Medicare Trust Fund Part A. And I would challenge any other Federal program to have that kind of taxpayer supported program. We will talk tomorrow about the supplemental defense spending, what is going on in Kosovo. I always like to give the example that if we did not appropriate $1 for the Pentagon tomorrow, we would not be able to handle our commitments to NATO or buy another missile or another tank or pay another service personnel, but the hospital portion of Medicare Part A, 89 percent is funded by the taxpayers directly. It does not come out of necessarily general revenue. It is for the trust fund. Medicare Part B is a split between 75 percent and 25 percent, general fund 75 percent and 25 percent from the beneficiaries. So we see that Medicare is not just general funds, it is a tax support. And that was created in the late 1980s and 1990s. The deductible for Medicare Part A is $768 per patient for Medicare Part A. That is a deductible. So it does not pay for everything. Medicare Part B, the premium that seniors pay is $45 a month, with a $100 a year deductible. Actually, beneficiaries pay a co-pay of 20 percent of the approved amount because Medicare pays for 80 percent and that 20 percent is the responsibility of the senior citizen. They can buy them a Medigap coverage that is regulated by State insurance commissions or they can pay that 20 percent themselves. The reason I think we are here tonight, and I do look forward to the dialogue that we have, and I could talk all evening about the benefits of the current program in the fee-for-service program, but the Medicare Commission I think had a great many shortcomings. I do not want to take anything away from Senator Breaux and his efforts to try and come up with a compromise. But the concern I had was the premium support proposal that they did come up with. That is not something I could vote for on the floor of this House. And I was glad that the Medicare Commission failed to get the number of votes that they needed to. It would increase premiums for millions of beneficiaries. It would cause the traditional program to rise, the premium, from 18 percent to 30 percent. In rural districts, of course my district is very urban, but in rural areas Medicare beneficiaries would pay differential premiums for the same traditional Medicare for the first time. And also, the premium support system, with what has happened with the managed care proposal issue now, we have managed care companies withdrawing from rural areas predominantly, so we could even see that as not as an option for rural areas in our country. It was a lose-lose situation for urban beneficiaries because urban beneficiaries who generally have access to managed care would not be protected against the higher traditional program premiums. They would also likely pay more for private plans, such as plans that would raise premiums for beneficiaries to compensate for Government payments that do not cover the local cost. And an unclear commitment on defined benefits. Again, we have a defined benefit program instead of a defined premium program. And again, the concern that we also hear is unfunded mandates for the States. Traditional Medicare premiums would rise under this proposal, and Medicaid cost for some States would actually go up for the low- income beneficiaries. So that is the concern. And again, I know the Commission worked long and hard. Both Members of the House and Senate were on it, along with private citizens. But I was glad they were not able to come up with a plan because the plan they ultimately came close to was one that we would be fighting here every day to try to keep from happening. Again, I thank the gentleman for asking for this time. Medicare is so important to not only my district and our Nation but to all our districts that we need to again continue this dialogue and raise the intensity so people know Medicare is challenged. It is in good shape until 2015 now. But it is still something we have to guard against every day to see that the reforms do not literally do what we in Texas call throw the baby out with the bath water. Sure, we can have some reforms. But let us not lose the traditional support that Medicare has for senior citizens.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored tonight to stand in support of H.R. 118 designating the J.J. Jake Pickle Federal Building in Austin, Texas. This is a fitting tribute to a unique Texan and former Member of Congress. I hope Jake and his wife are watching tonight in Austin, Texas. Jake Pickle is a legend to me, and even by Texas standards he is a legend. He put himself through college during the Depression, worked for President Roosevelt's National Youth Administration, served in the Pacific in World War II and started a radio station in central Texas, and he represented the Tenth District from 1963 to 1995. He had a long, distinguished career that my other colleagues have talked about, chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means. At one time even with the famous Claude Pepper, Jake Pickle won out on the Social Security reform bill with Claude Pepper. Mr. Speaker, Jake has a book just simply called ``Jake,'' and a couple of years ago on Father's Day my daughter was a student at the University of Texas and she went over and had Jake sign his book for me. And Jake talked to my daughter, and she has now graduated, and Jake was talking about some of his stories. His book is great on stories about Congress. I am just going to tell one of them because it is a great story. Jake is known for his storytelling abilities, and anybody who wants to read some great stories needs to look up that book at the Library of Congress and ask for ``Jake.'' It would probably make him happy if we even bought it. Jake served so many years, and in one of the chapters in his book, chapter 35, there is a great story that, in 1957 or 1958, Governor Price Daniel and Jake were in El Paso attending the State Democratic Executive Committee. At the time, the State of Chihuahua and Texas were instigating a program to eradicate the yellow boll weevil. So the Governor was in El Paso to officially give credence to the boll weevil eradication program as well. Their party stayed in El Paso, but they went across the border to Juarez. In Juarez, there was a good band and a floor show. So the manager looked around and he had heard the governor of Texas was in the party but he wished no publicity. The governor did not want it known, this was in the 1950s, that he was in a bar in Mexico, particularly since most of Texas was dry then, particularly the part Governor Daniel was from in east Texas. When their group arrived at the bar, they were seated at a long table near the band. Governor Daniel was a Baptist and a teetotaler, and he never drank, but he liked Cokes. And every once in awhile he would say well, Jake, I will take a Coke. Jake said he would go up to the bartender and ask the bartender to go ahead and put a shot of bourbon in it. He always asked for Cokes. Anyway, the funny part of the story is that everything went fine for a few minutes and the band having played some lively tunes from Mexico suddenly stopped and they had a drum roll. The governor looked around and looked at Jake and the band leader then announced on the mike, we are proud to have with us tonight the governor of the State of Texas, and another drum roll, the Honorable Price Daniel. Amid the fanfare, the light swept the bar and came to rest on their table, and nobody moved. Obviously, the governor did not want to stand up and be recognized in that bar in Mexico. Again, the announcer announced, damas y caballeros, another drum roll and still no movement from Governor Daniel. With the spotlight still on us the third time, the announcer said, please, will the governor of Texas stand and be recognized. Finally, the governor's wife, Jean, leaned over and whispered, Jake, for goodness' sakes, will you do it? The governor said, Jake, I bet you always wanted to be governor. Now here is your chance. So Jake Pickle stood up in that bar in Juarez and was recognized as the governor of Texas, and the band struck up ``The Eyes of Texas.'' That is just one of Jake's stories. Obviously, we miss him from Texas and all over Congress. He was a great Member. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 118, designating the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle Federal Building in Austin, Texas. This is a fitting tribute to a unique Texan and former Member of Congress. Congressman Pickle is a legend even by Texas standards. He put himself through college during the Depression, worked for President Roosevelt's National Youth Administration, served in the Pacific during World War II, started a radio station in Central Texas, and represented Texas' Tenth Congressional District from 1963 to 1995. During his long and distinguished career in the Congress, Jake Pickle prided himself as a protector of small businesses and a specialist in the Social Security system. Over the years, Congressman Pickle managed to involve himself in every major issue that confronted the Ways and Means Committee, from Social Security to trade to the complete revision of the Tax Code. During the 98th Congress, Jake Pickle chaired the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee. As chairman of that subcommittee, he was convinced that the way to save the Social Security system from a long- term collapse was to raise the retirement age. Democratic leaders, including Thomas P. O'Neill and Claude Pepper, wanted to solve long- term financing problems with eventual increases in the payroll tax. Few expected Pickle would prevail on the floor, but he did. Through months of argument over what to do about Social Security, Pickle and Pepper were the spokesmen for two diametrically opposite points of view. During floor consideration, the House chose Jake Pickle's approach, which later became law. This victory represents the culmination of a long personal struggle for Jake Pickle to put the Social Security system on a sound personal footing. Most everyone knows Jake Pickle as a political protege of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Congressman Pickle was a campaign manager and a Congressional aide to Johnson before World War II and an advisor in Johnson's 1948 Senate campaign. Jake always speak reverently about President Johnson and his commitment and dedication is a testament to their friendship. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have served with Congressman Jake Pickle and will be forever grateful for his friendship and his leadership. This designation is only a small token of our appreciation to a dedicated public servant.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I was elected to Congress 6 years ago and I came to Washington to work on health care and education for our children. But yesterday was one of the worst days I have served in 26 years of elected office. What a terrible message this House sent yesterday to our men and women serving our country in the Balkan conflict. The quote I heard ``taking ownership of this war'' by my Republican colleagues should be unacceptable, not only to myself but the American people. Our country's finest young men and women serving our Nation deserve more than politics as usual on this floor of the House. This reminds me of World War II when my Republican colleagues referred to World War II as ``Mr. Roosevelt's war.'' Please put your hatred aside for this President and realize that this conflict was not started by Bill Clinton, it was started by Serbia's murderers of civilians, and it was started by our commitment to NATO and to our allies who have protected us for 50 years from communism. Now your hatred of Bill Clinton is giving hope to our Nation's enemies who are trying to shoot down our men and women literally as we stand here today. Please think and reflect on your action because our service people are in harm's way.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak this evening. I thank the gentleman for not only his service on that Medicare Commission, but also for tonight, for this special order and some of the information you are imparting. I hope there are a lot of people out there listening, and those of us still in our offices will know, because what you are talking about with the difference in the defined benefit plan versus defined contribution was really one of the cutting edges on which you were talking about as a member of the Medicare Commission. I know you talked about it earlier, but protecting Medicare should be on the top of not just the Democratic agenda, but all our agendas. Ninety-nine percent of our seniors are relying on this program for some type of medical assistance. You talked about some success we had. Over 39 million elderly and disabled Americans, 35 million elderly and 5 million disabled, receive Medicare. Before Medicare, almost half of the elderly were uninsured. That was the fault of the market. No one could afford what the private sector wanted to charge a senior citizen for insurance. People could not afford it. That is why Medicare was created, and that is why it is so important that we talk about the policy debate like you are mentioning and we talk about how important the Medicare program is, because, to me, it ranks right up there with defense of the country, the Social Security system, education of our children and Medicare for our senior citizens. It has been so successful. The life expectancy of people over 65 has increased over 20 percent, from 79 to 82 years in such a short time. Access to care has increased by one-third. Seniors are seeing doctors almost 30 percent more than they did before Medicare. Poverty has declined, because, again, we have a program that they do not have to spend themselves poor to have health care. There are seniors who have very little income who cannot afford the high cost of medical assistance, if it was not for Medicare. The program is critical for those who face disability, as I mentioned. The gentleman talked about the dialysis, the kidney failure, the success we are having now under Medicare if you have kidney failure. At one time you were just sent home to die. Now you can actually live with dialysis that is available through Medicare. We search for ways to protect the future of the program. It is estimated that approximately 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have no prescription drug benefit. I know a lot of people in my district have joined Medicare HMOs simply because that is what they needed. They needed some type of prescription drug benefit, so they joined HMOs. The problem is we now see a lot of the health maintenance organizations, HMOs, withdrawing from the market because they got in and thought they would make more money. I thought they were making plenty. But they thought they would make more money, so they are drawing from certain portions of the market, rural areas; not necessarily from Houston where I am from, but I know it is happening in other parts of Texas. We did a study in the district I represent on prescription medication and the almost double and sometimes triple the cost of prescriptions for senior citizens. I know when the gentleman was on the commission, that was one of the things that the commission members agonized over and said well, if we are going to reform Medicare, let us see if we can expand fee-for-service Medicare, where one does not make a decision to go to managed care just because someone needs the help, to have a copay on prescription drugs. That is pending legislation, and I hope Congress will consider it when we are dealing with Medicare. I use an example, and I have said this thousands of times in my own district. My dad is 83 years old. I did not know his father. His father died before I was born. That was during World War II. My dad, though, his success is because he has had adequate health care since he has retired, since he has been 65, and so we are seeing that longevity individually and as a group, as I mentioned. So that is what the benefits of Medicare are, and that is why it is so important. That is why I wanted to see the commission successful. But I did not want to see it successful with what I would see would take away Medicare from the guarantee that we have. It does not pay for everything; the gentleman and I know that. Prescription drugs is a great example; glasses. It does not pay for everything. I saw a bill that my mother-in-law receives from a physician and there are things that Medicare does not pay for. She has to pay for that. We understand, though, that it pays for so much and it pays for so much security for seniors to go to the doctor. That is why I am proud to be with the gentleman tonight, and the gentleman's explanation of the defined benefit versus defined contribution. That is where the rubber meets the road, because in a district like I represent that is predominantly blue collar, they do not have that kind of income. Of course, I do not see how many people could afford, if we disregarded or eliminated Medicare right now, they could not go to the market and buy insurance. An actuary would say, if I am 67 years old, how much do you think they would want per month from me, $3,000 a month? How many people can afford that? The free market system is not available for Medicare recipients, for senior citizens, because it just cannot work. I think some people on the other side maybe have forgotten that, that the reason that we have Medicare is because one cannot use the free market system. If I was in the insurance business, I would not want to sell to a senior citizen. They are going to have a lot of claims; they are elderly. We cannot make that kind of money unless we have a Medicare- type program. So again, I thank the gentleman for his service on this commission, but also for this evening and this afternoon for requesting this time to talk about it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a bill to amend the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act. The legislation would simply extend the filing fee exemption fee to all elementary and secondary schools. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act increased the number of H1-B visas available over a series of years. This legislation also called for a $500 fee to be paid by the employer to file their H1-B visa application. However, this act also contained a provision that exempted institutes of higher education, non-profit research groups, and governmental research institutes from paying the filing fee. The exemption was afforded to these groups to help offset the cost of trying to employ talented workers from abroad. I represent part of Houston, Texas. Back home my wife is an algebra teacher in Aldine High School. She recently told me of their teacher recruiting efforts. The Aldine Independent School District is much like other district on or near the border. These school districts are constantly searching for talented, experienced teachers for our children. School districts on or near the border will even try to recruit teachers from abroad, who are experienced, bilingual, and who would be a great addition to any school's staff. The legislation I just introduced would extend the filing fee exemption to all of our schools and will give them the opportunity to recruit the most educated, talented, and experienced teachers for our students. By offsetting the cost of the application, our elementary and secondary schools could look to find the best teachers or specialists, and they could use the $500 filing fee to provide other education services for our schools.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 9th Annual Willie Velasquez Hispanic Excellence Award. This Award is designed to honor the Foremost Distinguished Hispanic Citizen in the arts, education, business, public and community service realm within Houston. For nine years, the National Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the Tejano Center for Community Concerns, and KTMD-TV Telemundo 48 have sponsored this Gala event that is designed not only to award outstanding Hispanic citizens but to raise money to benefit Hispanic education. Recipients of the award are citizens who demonstrate extraordinary community service, particularly in the areas of education of the Hispanic community. It is appropriate that the award is named after Willie Velasquez. Willie was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions to democracy. He spent his life ensuring that the Democratic voice of Hispanics would be heard, and he envisioned a society that would be empowered to change the world around them. The proceeds of the event benefit the Tejano Center and the National Hispanic Scholarship Fund. These organizations work to ensure that the growing needs of the community are met. They contribute scholarship funds to improve the educational opportunities for our children. They also provide neighborhood centers which provide a wealth of programs that not only benefit our children's social opportunities but works to ensure them a healthy and safe future. I would also like to commend Marcelo Marini of Telemundo Channel 48 for organizing the yearly event. Without his hard work and perseverance neither this award, not the scholarship would be available. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I would like to ask all the Members of the House to honor the Willie Velasquez Award and the vital role that it plays in the community.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ruby Lee Joseph, who died at the age of 67, on her birthday, June 20, 1998. Ruby Lee died surrounded by the people she loved most, her family. She was a role model, a community leader, and a dedicated mother and grandmother. Ms. Joseph was born and raised in Houston, Texas. She graduated from Jack Yates High School in 1949. Later she was married to Leroy Joseph, and together they had seven children. They raised their children with love and a strong sense of values, and all seven successfully graduated from college. Ruby Lee extended her familial bonds beyond those who were her blood. Throughout the community she was affectionately known as ``Grann'' or ``Ms. Ruby''. She leaves behind numerous ``adopted'' children and friends who will cherish her memory. Ms. Ruby was well-known in the community for her service at East Bethel Missionary Baptist Church and the Blue Triangle YWCA. She touched many lives, friends and strangers alike. She taught her family and friends to live by the Golden Rule. She instilled in her children that you should help others who needed it and to forgive others selflessly. Ruby Lee not only taught these valuable lessons, but exhibited them in her everyday life. Ruby Lee is preceded in death by her husband, parents, granddaughter Jasmine Joseph, and great granddaughter Tatiayana Garner. She leaves behind her children: Paula Sharleen and husband Ronald Crawford; Jeffrey Leon, Gerald Wayne and wife Marjorie; Gregory Allen and wife Debra; Iona Pearl, Reuben Lawrence and wife Deidre; Sharon Ann and husband Aaron Hughes; grandchildren: Gregory Wayne, Consuela and husband David Garner; Marcus, Antrice, Yolande, Candace, Crystal, Corey, Courtney, Justin, Christian, Jared, Gregory II, Reuben II, Reginald, and Aaron Alexander, Audrey and Denesa; her great grandchildren: Demontray, Ariel, A'reona and Dante. She also leaves her sister Kathleen Sander and husband Lonnie; her brother Wayne Anderson and wife Rosamond; her uncle Horace Mann Moore; her cousin Helen Jones; her stepmother Ruth Allen; her aunt Maggie Moore; three brothers-in-law Arthur, Ellis and Earl Joseph, and numerous ``adopted'' children, grandchildren and a host of relatives and friends. Mr. Speaker, I ask all the Members of the House to join me in paying tribute to the life of Ruby Lee Joseph. She touched our lives and our hearts, and she will be greatly missed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue with a series of speeches designed to explain to my colleagues the history of my home State of Texas. On March 2 of this year I spoke to this body of the brave actions taken by 54 men who signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, a document modeled after the one signed almost 60 years earlier by our Founding Fathers. I also spoke to my colleagues of the brave sacrifices of the defenders of the Alamo and of the massacre of Texas forces at Goliad. Six weeks later, on the banks of San Jacinto River, approximately 750 Texans under General Sam Houston assembled, determined to avenge their brothers. On the morning of April 20, 1836, over 1,500 Mexican soldiers under General Santa Ana approached the Texans' position. Driving off by fire from the famous ``Twin Sisters'' cannon, he fell back to regroup. The Texans, inspired by their initial success, were champing at the bit. Houston, however, held them back, and sent his most trusted spy, Erastus ``Deaf'' Smith, with a few men to burn Vince's Bridge, thus cutting off the path of retreat for the Mexican Army. Mr. Speaker, Vince's Bridge is in the 29th Congressional District that I am proud to represent. On the 21st, today's anniversary, though, Houston was ready to strike. With the Mexican Army still in its camp, Houston gave the order to advance, and the Texans did not hesitate. I say ``Texans,'' Mr. Speaker, because that force was made up of a lot of new immigrants to Texas from the United States. Texas has always been an immigrant State. When within 70 yards the word ``fire'' was given, the Texan shouts of ``Remember the Alamo'' and ``Remember Goliad'' rang along the entire line. Within a short time 700 Mexican soldiers were slain, with another 730 taken as prisoners. The whole battle lasted less than 30 minutes. From that point on, Texas was firmly established in the community of nations, seeking recognition. For 10 years she would remain an independent nation, until President James K. Polk signed the treaty admitting Texas to the United States in 1845. A panel on the side of the monument at the San Jacinto battleground today underscores the importance of the battle after more than a century and a half of reflection: ``Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the most decisive battles of the world.'' The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War in 1845, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Now, Mr. Speaker, at one time or another I am sure, coming from Texas, we claimed all those States as part of Texas, but they really were not. Almost one-third of the present area of the American Nation, nearly a million square miles, changed sovereignty starting with the battle of San Jacinto. The San Jacinto battlefield was in the 29th Congressional District until 1996 when the Federal courts changed our lines, and now it is in the 25th Congressional District. This major event in our history is remembered not only as a battle for Texas independence, but is a victory over freedom and dictatorship. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House and all of America will join those of us from Texas in celebrating that victory for freedom. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: [From the Houston Chronicle, Apr. 21, 1999] San Jacinto a day to remember great, unvarnished history of texas ``Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world.'' ``So begins the simple inscription at the base of the towering San Jacinto Monument. The obelisk, visible from the modern glass castles of downtown Houston, holds its head high over a few quiet, lowland acres at the confluence of Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto River. There fate and the future noisily and auspiciously crossed paths and swords on this date in 1836. ``The freedom of Texas from Mexico,'' the inscription continues, ``won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one- third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles, changed sovereignty.'' That is more than worthy of note and remembrance. But, even unvarnished, Texas history is a magnificent story in and of itself. And that is too often lost in these days of headline news and semi-literacy and our natural preoccupation with the present. When Gen. Sam Houston and Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, and their respective armies, met on the field that day, the combat lasted but 18 minutes--the killing went on for more than two hours. Knowing and understanding the reasons why, indeed the reasons there was a battle in the first place, ought to be at least as much a part of modern Texans' knowledge base as, say, what the weather might be tomorrow. But, sadly, it far too often is not. Yes, we remember the Alamo, but too few of us these days can remember and recount exactly why. And so, we pick a day of anniversary, a day of remembrance to give more than just a passing thought to what and why and how what we see before us, both the good and the bad, came to be. We observe San Jacinto Day with good cause here in Texas, our Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my good friend and colleague from Dallas, for organizing this special order tonight on education in math and science. Just to digress for a minute on a personal note, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and I have served together since both of us were many years younger, starting in 1973 as a State representative in Austin, Texas, and then in the State Senate before we both felt the urge to run for Congress in 1992. It is good to serve with her for all these 26 years. I need to go back to my math to count all of those years now. Mr. Speaker, our country, a leader in the world, has fallen dramatically behind the rest of the world in the critical subjects of math and science. When compared to students in European nations, our students finish at the bottom of their class. I would like to commend my colleague for introducing the Mathematics and Science Proficiency Partnership Act, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. This important legislation will help us provide both students and teachers the critical skills in math, science and information technology. Without these skills, our youth will be ill-equipped to compete in tomorrow's high-tech, computer-oriented marketplace. I would like to also highlight the success of our home State of Texas in developing the tools necessary to begin addressing the problem. Texas, in 1984, set an example and created the TAAS test, the test that represents a comprehensive assessment of problem-solving ability and higher-order thinking skills that all students must pass to earn their high school diplomas. It is given all during their latter years in school, but it is an exit-level exam that is required for graduation. Texas has taken it even one step further. In 1994, Texas schools began administering an end-of-course exam. These exams are designed to measure student progress toward the achievement of academic goals. These tests not only provide a solid measure of student achievement, they can also provide a benchmark that can be used to measure the performance of future students and provide for institutional accountability. Texas schools have used these tests to find out what works and what does not when it comes to educating our children. I sometimes think we can test too much, and with both TAAS and the end-of-course exams, that may be too much, but I know we do not need anymore, because now we need to focus on content, and that is what my colleague has in her legislation. Mr. Speaker, in 1994 in the Houston ISD, only 49 percent of the students in HISD could pass the TAAS exams for mathematics. Among African-American students, it was only 41 percent. Among Hispanic students, 44 percent, and among low-income students, the rate was 42 percent. That was in 1994. In 1998, four years later, we have seen the dramatic impact that these tests have in helping increase the rate of passage. Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of all students passed the TAAS mathematics test, an increase of 28 percent in 4 years. Among African-American students, the passage rate went to 73 percent; that is a 32 percent increase in 4 years. Among Hispanic students, the passage rate rose to 74 percent, an increase of 30 percent; and the passage rate among low- income students also rose to 74 percent, and that is a 32 percent increase. We saw similar results in the Aldine ISD, a district that is just north of Houston; again, two very urban districts, Mr. Speaker, and another school district that I am proud and honored to represent. In Aldine, we have seen an even more dramatic increase in the number of students passing the mathematics portion of the TAAS test. In 1994, in the Aldine district, 56 percent of all students passed. Among African-Americans it was only 42 percent, and among Hispanics, 55 percent, and among low-income students, 49 percent. In four years, what a difference four years makes. In 1998, 87 percent of all Aldine students passed their math TAAS, an increase of 31 percent. Among African-American students, the passage rate rose to 82 percent, an astounding increase of 40 percent. Among Hispanic students, their passage rate rose to 88 percent, an increase of 33 percent, and among low-income students, the passage rate rose to 86 percent, an increase of 36 percent. Mr. Speaker, we are testing the students now on the quality of what they are learning. We have seen success in the last 4 years, at least in the two districts that I represent, and that is true with a lot of our districts. But we still need to do programs like my colleague from Dallas has suggested, because what may work today will surely be behind the times tomorrow. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity with NASA, and NASA assigned an astronaut to me in my district, and so we went to middle schools in a predominantly Hispanic community in my district and had an astronaut, Dr. Franklin Chambias, along with a businessperson to talk about the importance of math and science. That is a one-day-a-year chance, we can only do three middle schools, to encourage those seventh and eighth graders to realize math and science are important. Programs like my colleague has introduced is something that needs to be done every day of the year, because if we do not, surely our students will be behind and the United States will not be the competitive Nation that we are now, and that is why this legislation is so important. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague not only for tonight, but also for authoring this legislation, and again, I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act, calls for a post-census local review by local governments of the census population numbers before they become official. We already have done that. We found out, though, that it does not work. We still lose over 8 million people. So this bill is not the solution that we need to do. The 1990 census was the least accurate of all our censuses. It missed or double counted over 8 million people. We have used the post-census reviews in 1990, and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) mentioned the quote from Dr. Barbara Bryant about how this post-census review in 1990 was well-intentioned but ineffective. Rather than repeat the post-census local review with its disappointing and miniscule results, the Census Bureau determined to find a better way for local governments to fully participate. They are doing that now. In 1990, Texas was undercounted substantially. Houston alone was undercounted by thousands. So by doing this in 1990, it was broken, but we need to fix it. This bill will not fix it, Mr. Speaker, unless we attach the Maloney amendment to it. I urge my colleagues to support the Maloney amendment. The Census Bureau estimates the post-census review will add an additional 9 weeks to the count which will also increase our costs. H.R. 472, the Local Census Quality Check Act, calls for a Post Census Local Review by local governments of the census population numbers before they become official. The 1990 census was the least accurate of all of our censuses and it missed or double counted over 8 million persons. We used a Post Census Local Review during the 1990 Census. However, Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau during the Bush Administration, has testified before the Census Subcommittee that Post Census Local Review in 1990 was a well intentioned, but ineffective, operation. . . . Rather than repeat postcensus local review, with its disappointing and minuscule results, the Census Bureau determined to find a way for local governments to more fully participate in the census. Texas was undercounted in 1990 in Houston alone by thousands. The Census Bureau has done just that. They have established The Census 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) which vastly expands both the interaction between local governmental units and the Bureau, and it extends the time local governments are given to verify and correct addresses and boundaries. To date, twice as many local governments are participating in Local Update of Census Addresses compared to the Post Census Local Review in 1990. Notably, these governments cover 85 percent of all addresses in the country. The Census Bureau estimates that a post census review will add an additional nine weeks to the count which would increase cost, increase delays, and effectively hinder the operations of the Census Bureau. Instead of wasting time, we should be using the most modern and scientifically accurate methods of counting in order to take the 2000 census. Without it the miscounting of minority populations will persist. H.R. 472 is a bad attempt at correcting the miscounting of over 8 million persons in our country during the 1990 census. We should not be wasting our time and taxpayer dollars on an operation that has proven to be at best ineffective. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 472, unless the Maloney amendment is adopted.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for organizing this special order this afternoon. It is hard to ignore the fact that our country is one of the greatest in the world, Mr. Speaker, and we have crumbling classrooms and overcrowded classrooms. Research has shown that students do not learn well in overcrowded classrooms and schools. Some schools have problems with ventilation, heating, air conditioning, lighting, water, along with environmental hazards, such as asbestos. Worst of all, many schools do not have access to the Internet. The advantages of the Internet are unlimited. It is one of the most important educational tools, and provides instant access to a wealth of information. We need to provide the necessary funding to enable local schools not only to modernize and to rebuild their classrooms, but to make sure each student has access to the Internet. One of these schools could be preparing the first person to land on Mars, cure cancer or AIDS, or halt global warming. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this last Friday to have an astronaut from the Johnson Space Center, Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, to visit a number of middle schools in my district in Houston, Texas. He looked out over the 8th graders in each of the rooms and said, ``You are the generation that will be on Mars.'' We need to make sure those eighth graders are prepared to make that step onto Mars. Also last week, Mr. Speaker, during our break, I had a chance to visit the AAMA Learning Center in my district. AAMA is the Association for Advancement of Mexican Americans. They have a charter school in Houston, Texas. They received E-rate funding for their charter school in the amount of a little over $35,000. I was happy to see this funding was being used to provide counseling in reading and computer training to these youth in my district, but particularly Hispanic youth. The AAMA school, the George I. Sanchez High School, was established to take dropouts from our public school system and give them that second chance or that opportunity. When charter schools became in vogue, George I. Sanchez had been around for a number of years. When charter schools became in vogue, the George I. Sanchez School became one of those charter schools and is successful today, Mr. Speaker, because of the success. They are benefiting from the E-rate that will help that charter school help educate these students who are the leadership for tomorrow. We need to make sure that programs like AAMA's have the necessary funding so that all children have access to quality and innovative education to be competitive in this global economy we have. In addition, we need to finish the job of hiring the 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades. My wife is a public school teacher in the Aldine district in Texas. Even in high school we have problems with overcrowding in our math classes. It is tougher to teach 35 children algebra, Mr. Speaker. In Texas, in 1984, the gentleman from south Texas knows because his former elected position was a State Board of Education member in Texas, Texas law changed it to where we had 22-to-1 pupil/teacher ratio in grades K through 4. That is great. The problem is we could not even keep up, and there are a lot of waivers having to be granted because of the need. We need that 22-to-1 not only on a State level, but we need it to be 20-to-1 or 18-to-1 on a national level, particularly in elementary school grades, because that is where we set the tone for children to be good students. Of course, before they get to be high school algebra students or science students or English or math, we need to make sure those class sizes are also small. Because if we are preparing our children to take our place not only as astronauts and physicists and Members of Congress, we need to make sure they have every opportunity. Let us focus our energy on school modernizing initiatives so our children can learn in a safe and clean environment. Let us create a learning environment in our schools that inspires education and imagination. Let us reduce those class sizes so every child gets the attention and the guidance they need. Finally, let us provide state-of-the-art technology so that each child is prepared for the challenges and demands of the 21st century. These are measures that will make a difference in the education of our children and that will provide for the best learning environment for our children. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) has two very attractive and cute little girls, Mr. Speaker, and I have watched them, not only the 2 years he has served and now his third year, his second term in Congress. I remember my children went to public schools in Texas, and now a daughter who is starting medical school in Texas and a son who is going to graduate school at Texas A&M, they went to public schools. Public schools educate most of the people in our country. We cannot say that we are going to fail the public schools simply because they have a harder job today than they did when I was in public schools in the 1960s. We need to make sure we give them the resources, the technology, the facilities, the smaller class sizes, and also the qualified teachers to be able to do it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for allowing me to participate with him today.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the closing minutes of the special order, I would like to mention what the gentleman from New Jersey said about changing Federal law, because again the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and I are both from Texas, and Texas changed the law in 1997 for those insurance policies that are licensed under State law. I know it is being considered by dozens and dozens of States. But in Texas I have seen the percentage, that over 60 percent of the health insurance policies in our State are issued under ERISA, under Federal law. So we can have the best laws we want to coming out of our State capitols all across the country, and I think the one in Texas is really revolutionary, so to speak, and I hope other States will follow this on those policies that are licensed by State law; but we have to pass something in Congress to affect Federal law, to affect those multi-State companies that have plans in the gentleman's district, in my district, and yet they come under Federal law. So we need to deal with the majority of the people. That is why Congress has to take up this standard and follow the lead of States like Texas. I know New Jersey is considering it also. I would hope that we would have that. That point needs to be made. It is not Congress meddling in States' rights, it is Congress learning from the success that we have had, at least in the State of Texas, and following through. Okay, it has worked in Texas. We have not seen breaking down the courthouse doors with all these lawsuits that have been threatened or at least threatened by the insurance companies. All it is is trying to manage the field, to make that pendulum come back a little bit so we talk about quality. We have to pass a Federal law to give our constituents, no matter who they work for, whether it is an in-State insurance policy or a multi-State, that same protection. Again, I thank the gentleman for bringing that up.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my New Jersey colleague for being chair of our Health Care Task Force of the Democratic Caucus, and I think after what happened this last week and the American people have made very clear about what issues they want this Congress to work on. At the top of that list is managed care reform. Of course, I think we have heard not only that voice but that echo now for a number of years. And last year the Republican leadership failed to make the good-faith effort to pass meaningful HMO reform. In fact, the bill that we passed is what I called a sham bill that did nothing to protect patients. While it had a good name, the Patient Protection Act really did more to protect the insurance companies than anyone else. And I say that because actually it rolled back the State law in the State of Texas that the State of Texas had passed in 1997. And almost every one of the so-called patient protections had loopholes big enough to drive a car through. Fortunately, the Senate had enough sense not to force through that partisan bill that did not adequately protect patients, and this year it seems the roles are reversed. This year the Senate ``HELP'' Committee passed a managed care bill along party lines and rejected 20 out of 22 Democratic amendments. The only amendments they accepted were technical in nature. The 20 amendments designed to protect patients in managed care were voted down one by one. Now, they did not all deal with allowing patients to sue their health care provider. So 20 of those amendments, Mr. Speaker, were rejected. Republicans rejected amendments that would have protected women who undergo mastectomy for breast cancer and rejected expanding access to emergency room care and access to clinical trials so that patients in the managed care system can have the cutting-edge health care available. Hopefully, the House will act more responsibly this year and reject the Senate proposal. Our House Committee on Commerce began hearings already, we had one hearing on a promised bipartisan hearing schedule for managed care reform. Certainly, the press releases and the public statements by the House and committee leadership has been encouraging. Let us just hope that they follow through with their commitment to bipartisanship and agree to support real managed care reform like the Patients' Bill of Rights. That means not just a flashy title or a few catch phrases, but elimination of gag clauses for all physicians and providers and patients; provide timely and binding external appeals; guarantee access to specialists and emergency room care and, again, access to clinical trials so patients can have cutting-edge technology, allow doctors to determine what is medically necessary, and also protect the privacy of medical records. Most importantly, managed care reform holds the medical decision- maker accountable. Now, the medical decision-maker sometimes may not be that provider. What some people either do not understand or care about is that there is no accountability without liability. There is no accountability without liability. We can pass all the patient protections we want with the best appeals and full access to specialists, but if a health plan cannot be punished for ignoring these medical decisions, they will continue to ignore doctors' treatment decisions and patients will continue to suffer. Managed care was begun in our country and I understand. Before I was elected to Congress, my job at my company was dealing with insurance companies and negotiating for health care for our employees. And having dealt with them, I know the cost that individual businesses were seeing, and so managed care was created to control those costs. Again, they have done that. But let us bring that pendulum back and say, we want to control those costs, but we do not want to see the loss of quality for those employees that I used to have to find their insurance for or the people out there who today are trying to find that insurance. Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague from New Jersey for his leadership and also this special order this evening allowing those of us, who all have different ways we talk, to talk about from all across this country how important real managed care reform is for this session of Congress.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Health, I am committed to ensuring patients have complete and comprehensive access to information before they make a decision about a medical procedure. To this end, I am proud to re-introduce the Silicone Breast Implant Research and Information Act because I believe it is critical to the advancement of women's health and is the first step towards answering the many questions about the safety and efficacy of silicone breast implants. By re-introducing this bill today, I along with the 41 original cosponsors, hope to draw attention to an issue that has been either neglected or out right ignored for too long. It is estimated that as many as 2 million women have received silicone breast implants over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, the information provided to these women before they elected to have silicone breast implants has been both incomplete and even inaccurate. Moreover, results from past studies have only raised more questions about possible negative effects that ruptured or leaking silicone breast implants may have on breast milk, connective tissue, autoimmune diseases and the accuracy of breast cancer screening tests. Our legislation ultimately seeks to change this by focusing on three critical points--information, research, and communication. First, and in my opinion most importantly, this bill will ensure that information sent to women about silicone breast implants contains the most up to date and accurate information available. Current information packets sent to women do not accurately describe some of the potential risks of silicone breast implants. While recent studies by the Institute of Medicine indicate the rupture rate may be as high as 70 percent, information sent to women suggests the rupture rate is only 1 percent. Second, this bill encourages the director of the National Institutes of Health to expand existing research projects and clinical trials. Doing so will compliment past and existing studies and will hopefully clear up much of the confusion surrounding the safety and efficacy of silicone breast implants. Finally, this bill establishes an open line of communication between federal agencies, researchers, the public health community and patient and breast cancer advocates. Women, especially breast cancer patients, want and deserve full and open access to silicone breast implants. Therefore, it is critical that these products are safe and effective, and that women are provided complete and frequently updated information about the health risks and benefits of silicone breast implants. While I unequivocally support a women's right to choose to use silicone breast implants, I believe we have a responsibility to support research efforts that will provide the maximum amount of information and understanding about these products. Recently, I met with a group of women who had silicone breast implants. One of them shared with me her story about trying to get health insurance after she received her implants. To my dismay, it is standard operating procedures for several health plans to deny health insurance for women with breast implants. And this was a healthy woman! This story only reinforced my belief that silicone breast implants may cause very serious health problems. The day has come to answer the questions and find out what is causing so many women who have implants to get sick. I hope each of you join me in support of this important legislation.