Gene Green

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time to stand today to oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I asked for an amendment to be considered last night in the Committee on Rules because I share some of the concerns of the proponents of this amendment, although I oppose the Istook amendment. The amendment I asked for would actually go further toward what Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and James Madison had said and used in a lot of our State Constitutions, to make sure we do have freedom of expression. But the Committee on Rules said, no, we cannot improve on this except for one case offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). Mr. Speaker, I am opposing this rule and opposing the Istook amendment. It is hard to stand up here, Mr. Speaker, to do that because my religious beliefs are really important to me and my family. We do not need to wear them out here on the floor of the House to talk about how important religion is to our family and to us individually. I seem to remember growing up in Sunday school and in church as always part of my life and learning that we do not need to yell from the street corners our religion, that we should go into a room and pray on our own and not necessarily have to do it like we are doing it today. So people of faith can stand up here and oppose this amendment, even though I heard in a special order the other night one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia, who said there is a special place in hell for Justices and Members of Congress who oppose this. Thank goodness he is not making that decision. He is putting his place in the place of God. That is why this amendment is wrong. We need to have religious freedom. We have it right now. The Department of Education has said we have religious freedom. My wife teaches in public school. I have given prayers at football games. We have Bible studies. We have prayer every morning in our public school around the flagpole. We have prayer in our schools. It is not the prayer that the school board wants the students to say, because that is what the Constitution never said. It is prayer that our students want on their own, that their parents provide them the guidance. Mr. Speaker, that is why we should oppose this amendment. We have prayer in the schools right now. Let us not make it worse by the Istook amendment.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York who journeyed to Houston yesterday and experienced our 98 degree temperature to discuss the census at a roundtable discussion with the President of the United States and people from my district, in fact, from all over Houston. Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was also there and here tonight. It was estimated that the 1990 census undercounted 8.4 million people. Another 4.4 million people were actually counted twice. This undercount greatly reduces the Federal funding sent to a locality, particularly if one has an area like my State, where the undercount could be dramatic, whether it be California, Texas, Arizona, Florida. It has been estimated that Texas, because of the undercount in 1990, lost $1 billion in Federal funds. That $1 billion is not just social welfare, as a lot of people think of it. First, it is education funding, Title I funding that has a baseline in the census and an update every 2 years, health care. Veterans benefits is based on an accurate census and the number of veterans and the number of people in a given community. Highway construct funding is based on census. So that is why it is so important to have an accurate count. An accurate count for Title I funding is so important because of the effort that is the Federal program to help children who are the most in need. And we need to have an accurate count. And, again, our Congress changed the law to have an update every 2 years in 1994, but we still have to have a baseline that is correct. It is necessary to forecast information on accuracy for Social Security and Medicare. So without an accurate count, we are hurting, not only as a Nation but also individually, our communities. Census Bureau officials have said that Houston was one of the most affected by the last census count. Over 66,000 people in the City of Houston were undercounted or uncounted. It estimates that, in 1990, Census missed 4.4 percent of the African American population, 5.5 percent of the Hispanic population, 2.3 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders. It is a shame that our census is missing these people and these people are not being counted. A fair count is necessary to ensure that all people in our country are represented and that they have a voice. A fair and accurate count is vital for information that is used by everyone, from the Department of Education to a small business marketing a new product. Yesterday, again, President Clinton visited the congressional district I am honored to represent to discuss the need for an accurate count. He met with everyday people, not only people in the audience who were there, but he conducted a panel discussion by people who rely on census data in their everyday life. Here is what some of the participants said: Gilbert Moreno, who is the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans, said that the census must accurately chart the growth of Hispanics in America. Over the next 50 years, Hispanics and Asians will provide almost half of the country's growth; and the accuracy of these statistics is crucial. And yet in the last census they were one of the two groups that were the most undercounted in our country. Dr. Mary Kendrick, director of the City of Houston Health Department, said accurate census data is critical to the public health. She noted census data on child poverty helps determine nutrition programs and children's health programs in the City of Houston as well as around the country. Glenda Joe, who is the owner of Great Wall Enterprises, a marketing firm aimed at the Asian American community, called the census the bible of corporations looking to plan their business allocations for marketing and advertising. An inaccurate count means she has trouble selling corporations on the idea of Asian American outreach because that community is uncounted. Again, as a business person before I was elected to Congress, I used census data; and businesses, I know, use it. An uncount or a not accurate count hurts businesses trying to make a decision on marketing their products in our community. The question arises, what is the best way to count our country's population? The past two censuses have shown that the current procedure undercounts our population, especially minorities. Some Members of the House believe that an accurate enumeration is the only way to take a census. In other words, what I would like to do, and in the past two censuses we have had where you count everyone. You have the mail brochures. You have people actually go out and see those people. But I have people in my district, as all of us have, who may not want to mail back that information, who may not want to answer that door because the census does not have the right to come in our home and investigate us. They may because of their own privacy concerns. So they are being undercounted; that is, not counting people who may be concerned that there may be a language problem because the census takers in their neighborhood may not be conversant in the language that is customarily used in that neighborhood. So we want to count everyone that we can by the old system, but we also need to make sure that the undercount, that we recognize there is an undercount, a mechanism to adjust that, and that is why sampling is so important. That is why we need to count everyone we can and then have the statistical community endorse the use of sampling as a way of ensuring that the undercount that occurred in 1990 is not repeated. Businesses use the same sampling techniques. That is all I think we, as a government, ought to use, is the same sampling techniques that businesses use to get the best we can for the dollars we spend for those census takers. Let us also use sampling to make sure everyone is counted, even if they do not want to be, because that is the basis of not only allocation of our districts, but also it is so important for the next 9 years after redistricting for the allocation of resources to serve those constituents. It was a great day yesterday. It talked about putting a human face on the need to have census data. We were at the Magnolia Multipurpose Center in the City of Houston. They have a senior citizen nutrition program. They have a WIC program. They have a health care clinic that serves children, and plus we have conducted a lot of our own town hall meetings at that location. It is a utilized facility, but that facility would not have the funds that they have today if we do not have an accurate count. In fact, they are doing with less today because of the undercount in that neighborhood in 1990. We need to make sure we have an accurate count. I was glad my colleague from New York came to Houston, again, to brave our warm temperatures and to talk about how important the census, an accurate census is. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, hidden in today's Washington Post is an article that Speaker Gingrich sent the Republican Health Care Reform Task Force of the Republican Conference back to the drawing board. It is another attempt of the Republicans to destroy-by-delay health care improvements which are needed by the American people. We should not forget that our first priority is to help the patient. We owe it to the American people to provide top quality medical care. We need an anti-gag rule where physicians can talk to their patients. We need an appeals process, both internal and external, for the patients' benefits. We need to give employees the choice, other than going to the HMO that somebody else chooses for them. We need to make decisionmakers responsible. If a doctor is responsible for one's health care, then somebody who tells that doctor no should also be responsible. This decision stops a bipartisan effort to provide health care reform, and I hope that the American people think it is such a shame, just like I do. We need managed care reform now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Chairman, I missed rollcall vote 145 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here, I would have voted no.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer), my subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Commerce and Subcommittee on Energy and Power for allowing me to speak tonight. I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. The States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont deserve and expect congressional approval for the disposal and storage of their low-level radioactive waste. Since 1985, Congress has improved nine compacts which include 41 States, so we are not breaking new ground by this legislation. It is vitally important that we move this bill quickly. In fact, that is frustrating, Mr. Speaker, because I was in the State senate when we approved the compact as a State legislature in 1991. We did not approve the site; that was left to the experts. And now they, the experts, have picked a site in west Texas. It may not have been the one I picked, but I know we need a low-level site. So that is why we are here today, to authorize that. If the State of Texas wants to pick another site, let them do that, but there is no reason why we should make that decision here on the floor of the House. The better place to do it is in the halls of the State legislature. So, anyway, I support the bill. Under the terms of the Texas-Maine-Vermont compact, low-level radioactive waste produced in each State will be carefully disposed of at a single facility. Again, it is in west Texas. I share the concern my colleague from San Antonio has with the 60 miles of the border, but we also have pollution that goes both ways across the border. In fact, it was ironic, last week, last fall rather, I was in California and saw cross-border pollution in California, both ways, from both northern Mexico and from southern California. So we have that problem on both sides within 60 miles of the border. There is a need for this. Many other States are part of the compact. We need to have Texas and Maine and Vermont have their compact so we can protect the citizens of Texas, because, otherwise, this compact, without this approval, could ultimately be the low-level waste site for all the country. That is not what the States want. That is why other States have created compacts and that is why it is important for Texas to do this. The waste will be transported from hospitals and university research centers, utilities, and other waste producers in each State to a safe, permanent disposal site to be built in Texas. Much has been said about the proposed site for the waste disposal facility. In fact, the permit to build the waste disposal facility in west Texas has been requested from our Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. If the Commission finds that the permit meets all of the requirements, it will grant that permit. If Congress does not approve this bill under the Interstate Commerce clause, Texas must accept low- level waste from all other States. H.R. 629 would allow Texas to limit who sends waste to the facility and be in compliance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, just like 41 other States, Mr. Speaker, had their ability to limit it in a compact. Again, Texas, there are three States; I think the minimum number of States that can be in a compact is three States, and so Texas and Maine and Vermont had made this agreement. Again, this is over a period of years. This just did not happen yesterday or last year. When this first was being discussed, Ann Richards was the Governor of Texas, and now George Bush; and Ann Richards supported a low-level compact just like George Bush supports it. The compact makes it possible to manage a Texas facility in an orderly and efficient manner. Without the compact, we would have no control in Texas over access. The Texas, Maine, and Vermont compact is an excellent arrangement between the three States, and it has received overwhelming bipartisan support in the legislatures of all three States. I know because, again, I was there in 1991. We approved the compact commission decision, not the site selection. That, again, is best left to the local legislature and the local experts to do that, not here on the floor of Congress. We can debate all day whether we like the site in west Texas, or maybe we would like a site in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). That was one I heard earlier that was proposed in the earlier part of this decade. Let us let the folks in Texas make that decision and not here, because we do not have that expertise on the floor. So I urge passage of the bill and support H.R. 629.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I had a chance like my colleagues to read the amendment and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my colleague on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I find it amazing that in the amendment that takes away the ability to have fairness, we have on page 2 that the gentleman from California quoted that it is the policy of the United States to do these things, but without any teeth in the amendment we might as well just throw it all away, and that is what should be done with this amendment. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress, I believe it is my duty to make sure that all Americans are served, and I believe that education for everyone is a key to our Nation's continuing success. That is why I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). This amendment is an attack on the efforts to educate everyone in our Nation. In my home State of Texas we have a very diverse population, a population that is becoming more diverse with each generation. We cannot afford to implement a law that makes educating this diverse population more difficult. I heard tonight the quote from our Attorney General, who is not running for reelection in our State of Texas, saying that should not be done. We are not talking about reparations; we are talking about fairness. We are talking about making sure that the America of the future will have that opportunity for education no matter what color of the skin. In Texas, we have witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of Hispanic and black admissions to Texas higher education institutions after the Federal court ruling against affirmative action in the Hopwood case. We do not need to see a bleaching of America's higher education institutions. I do not need our college graduates to look like me. I want them to look like America. I do not want them to all be white Anglo-Saxon protestants. I want them to look like Americans. We must advance educational opportunity, not limit it. If the Riggs amendment only had the second part, then maybe all of us could vote for it because that is the policy of the United States: To educate everyone, no matter where they come from or what their ethnicity. The Riggs amendment would roll back the progress we are making. Affirmative action needs to be amended but not ended. I remember hearing Dr. King in 1963 say he had a dream. That dream has not come true. That is why this amendment needs to be defeated.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Michigan, our ranking member (Mr. Dingell) for allowing me to speak for 2 minutes. I rise in support of H.R. 1872, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act. In committee several modifications were indicated to accommodate the concerns that I had, as well as other Members, and we believe that we have addressed the legitimate issues, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for addressing the issues of the maritime concerns. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to place into the Record a letter to the Chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) from the Chamber of Shipping of America in support of the bill, in support of the changes that were made, both in the committee and in the chairman's mark. H.R. 1872 will start the privatization of both INTELSAT and Inmarsat. These global satellite network systems help provide services such as telephoning long distance and maritime safety services. The maritime industry plays an important role in my district, particularly because of the Port of Houston. During committee consideration, concerns were expressed about the impact of this privatization effort on maritime safety services. I am particularly concerned with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety Service which is provided by COMSAT using the Inmarsat satellite system. Currently, the GMDSS that is connected to a ship's communication systems allows a vessel to reach maritime rescue services at the push of a button. The modifications made in committee and supported by the letter that I will put into the Record will take positive steps to maintain and assist and improve the GMDSS. These modifications ensure that maritime safety devices and services will always be available to our shipping industry. For example, a provision was added which clarifies that the United States will not oppose the registration of orbital locations for Inmarsat replacement satellites. H.R. 1872 also requires the FCC to consider equipment cost and design change and design life of maritime communications equipment when making a licensing decision. This provision, added, makes sure that the maritime industry's investments in communications equipment are not rendered useless or become too costly because of competition. This bill will help increase marketplace choice, and again, I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Chairman, at this time I include for the Record the letter previously referred to. Chamber of Shipping of America, Washington, DC, April 29, 1998. Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Chairman, House Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bliley: The purpose of this letter is to express our appreciation for your willingness to respond to our concerns outlined in our letter of February 26, 1998, with regard to the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act, H.R. 1872. As we indicated previously, our members are the end users of these systems and, as such, generally support the concept of privatization since, if properly done, will ultimately result in better service at a lower cost to the end user. As you recall, our concerns related to continuity of service of the GMDSS and commercial maritime functions, as well as the need to mitigate substantial investments in new equipment by users who have recently made expenditures for equipment which interfaces with existing systems. On review of the substitute bill and amendments as reported out of your Committee, we are pleased to find provisions that address our concerns, specifically as follows: Section 601(b)(3), Clarification: Competitive Safeguards relating to the existence of non-core services at competitive rates, terms, or conditions. Section 624 (2) and (7) relating to preservation, maintenance and improvement of the GMDSS. Section 681(a) (11) and (21), Definitions relating to non- core services and GMDSS. We understand these considerations to be several of many which the FCC will consider in future action. We urge you to include in the record language that reemphasizes these issues which are so critical to the continued safety of mariners worldwide and the continued reliability of the U.S. maritime industry. Mr. Chairman, we know this has been a challenging issue for all involved and we truly appreciate your leadership in assuring the concerns of the maritime industry are adequately addressed. We look forward to continued work with you and your Committee in the future. Sincerely, Kathy J. Metcalf, Director, Maritime Affairs.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new basketball coach for the Cougars at the University of Houston--Clyde Drexler. Clyde Drexler is truly a coach who not only understands the game but understands basketball in Houston--both collegiate--the Houston Cougars and national--the Houston Rockets. A perennial All-Star and a member of the 1992 Olympic Dream Team, Drexler twice led the Blazers to the NBA finals. It wasn't until he joined the Houston Rockets midway through his 12th campaign, however, that he finally earned a championship ring. He has been a leading scorer at 18.5 points per game for the Rockets. The 10-time All-Star missed six games in January with an injured shoulder. He spent the first 11\1/2\ seasons of his career with the Portland Trail Blazers before getting traded to the Rockets on February 14, 1995. As a forward in college, Drexler along with fellow current Rocket teammate and All-Star Hakeem Olajuwon, formed a front line that took the University of Houston's ``Phi Slama Jama'' team to two straight trips to the NCAA Final Four in the early 80s. Drexler starred at the University of Houston from 1980-1983. He currently ranks 13th on the school's all-time scoring list with 1,383 points. As a player in the NBA, Clyde has always been recognized for his character and poise in the public spotlight. Now he will have the opportunity to teach a new generation of basketball players how to conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism both on and off the court. Drexler will provide young basketball players with the determination and guidance needed to succeed in basketball both at the collegiate and national level. I am glad to welcome him as the coach for the Houston Cougars. But more importantly, I wish him and the team good luck on Drexler's first season as coach.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to women, men, and their families who are fighting the scourge of breast cancer. As many of my colleagues may remember, last Spring, I submitted S. Res. 85, with my fellow Senator from New Hampshire, recognizing the family and friends of breast cancer patients in the struggle to cope with this disease. The Senate passed my Resolution by unanimous consent and expressed their overwhelming support for individuals who provide strength and support for loved ones fighting breast cancer. I come to the floor today to again note the importance of this expression and to recognize a very important organization in my home state of New Hampshire that is spreading this message to breast cancer patients across the country. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 1998, 178,700 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States and 1,600 cases will be diagnosed among men. These numbers more than triple in size when you consider the family and friends who are also impacted by the disease. With each and every one of these cases comes family and friends who are looked upon to provide the caring and loving needed to overcome such a terrifying disease. The Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation, in Dover, New Hampshire, has done an excellent job of expressing this notion to the people of New Hampshire and beyond. With their campaign titled, ``It's My Fight, Too,'' the Foundation has let individuals afflicted with breast cancer know that they are not alone in their struggle. It is important for the family to understand that their feelings are shared by others in their same situation and that they should find strength in numbers. Awareness campaigns like ``It's My Fight Too,'' are extremely important to foster an environment where support for both the individual with breast cancer and their family and friends is encouraged. Awareness is the key to allowing people to understand and identify with those suffering around them. We can all, as community members, provide support and strength to those in need. As Mother's Day approaches, the Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation will be holding their annual event to recognize the important women in our lives who may or may not be suffering from this disease but who never the less, need to know that breast cancer is not just a women's disease but a struggle that can be fought by all of us together. Their event, ``Family and Friends Against Breast Cancer, It's My Fight Too, A Night of Hope, Song and Love'' will bring people from across the Northeast together to express the same support the Senate expressed with the passage of S. Res. 85. I commend the efforts of the Northeast Health Care Quality Foundation and encourage organizations across the country follow their leadership and example.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time to speak in opposition to this bill. Let me quote some of my colleagues from the other side. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) said that rhetoric and the destroying of public education is not the intent. I sat on this floor and heard one of my colleagues a few months ago say that public education is a legacy of the Communist revolution. And so maybe that is not the intent of this bill, but it sure gives that intent when you hear some of the rhetoric from the other side. My colleague from Indiana talked about the Titanic, that nobody would get on the lifeboat. Those of us who saw the Titanic will remember how those gates were closed for those people in steerage. Those 7,500 children may be able to get out and get that lifeboat, but we are leaving thousands and tens of thousands still in steerage with the gates closed and without the opportunity that fixing public education really needs to be done. Public education is available for everyone. It is irresponsible to have a voucher bill that takes scarce public funds and uses it for private schools, to only educate those few who maybe will make it out of steerage and maybe break down that gate or sneak around that gate, but not break the whole gate down so everyone can have that opportunity. That is what public education is about. The tuition costs in private schools in the D.C. area is far greater than the value of the vouchers. So we are only going to be able to help those few students, Madam Speaker, who will be able to have their parents to match that, because the tuition is going to be so much more. Again, we are throwing up barriers. We really ought to fix the D.C. schools, and not only fix it for 10 percent of the students. Madam Speaker, I hope this bill will be defeated.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have a ``three-fer'' here from Texas. Social Security represents one of the most successful programs ever enacted by our U.S. Government. It along with Medicare are the crown jewels, as we call them, of Democratic legislative accomplishments from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson. Today I will vote to establish a national dialogue on Social Security. It is important that we start this process immediately, so that we have ample time to consider a variety of proposals and have time to develop the best way to save Social Security for the future generations. As Members of Congress, this is one of our greatest responsibilities. Congress created this program to raise the income level of senior citizens above the poverty line. It has been so successful in the 63 years, and I hope that my Republican colleagues have learned how important Social Security and Medicare is to all Americans. We do not need to gamble with Social Security funds and invest them in fly-by- night schemes. We need to make sure they are there not just for the generation that is enjoying the benefits now, but for the next generation and the next generation, to make sure we do not slip back into poverty for our senior citizens.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, we see the House Republican leadership and the tobacco industry are united in their message. They are both attacking big taxes, big government, and saying there they go again. Tobacco companies have full page ads in newspapers all over the country saying, ``We want to attack big taxes and big government.'' Well, so do we. But what I want to be concerned about is the children that they have admitted to addicting for many years to tobacco. In testimony before our Committee on Commerce they agreed they marketed their industry to children 12 years old, 13 and 14-year-olds. That is why they agreed to a settlement to pay for what they did for the last 30 years to have those children addicted who are now my age. That is why they agreed to pay $300-plus billion now. What we want to do is make sure they do not continue to do that to the next generation, to addict more Americans at a young age. It is really sad that more children know Joe Camel than know Mickey Mouse. That is because of the success of their advertising campaign. Mr. Speaker, instead of attacking big government and big taxes, why not attack the issue of trying to stop children from smoking?

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Health Insurance Tax Deductibility Act of 1998. This bill is a simple, common sense solution to a very complex and destructive problem in our society. Since I came to Congress in 1992, we have debated health care reform and considered a wide range of proposals--all designed to insure a greater number of Americans. When President Clinton signed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) into law in 1996, everyone said Congress had taken the first step towards ensuring access to health insurance to more individuals and families. Unfortunately, a recent study by the General Accounting Office shows us this goal has not been achieved. Although HIPAA did expand access to health insurance, it did nothing to ensure that Americans can afford health insurance. And as the GAO study recognized, affordability has become the major hurdle for the American family to clear. In the past, Congress has passed initiatives to encouraged and assist people to get health insurance. We allow employers who sponsor health insurance for their employees to deduct the employer's share of the premium as a business expense. We allow self employed people to deduct a percentage of the health insurance premium they purchase. Yet we provide no assistance or incentive for individuals whose employers do not provide health insurance. The Health Insurance Tax Deductibility Act of 1998 will do just this. Under this legislation, individuals will be able to deduct a portion-- linked to the deduction for the self insured--they pay for health and long-term care insurance. This proposal will make health insurance more affordable for individuals and their families, which in turn, will give American families greater piece of mind.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Youth Tobacco Possession Prevention Act of 1998. I did this because, as we consider the best way to reduce the youth smoking rate, we have neglected one of the most obvious and appropriate solutions--making tobacco possession by people under the age of 18 illegal. It is estimated that 3,000 young people start smoking every day. Worse yet, one third, or 1,000, of these people will eventually die from tobacco related disease. Consider the emotional and financial strain these horrible situations will place on American families in the future. In response to this national crisis, the public health community, State attorneys general, the U.S. Congress and even the tobacco industry have proposed a variety of methods to reduce youth smoking rates. Most of the proposals would spend money on counter advertising, tobacco cessation programs and tobacco education programs--all worthy and necessary components of comprehensive tobacco legislation. However, the leadership of the American government has been sending mixed signals to America's youth and nothing in the proposed settlement would change this. Under current law, it is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 in all 50 States. However, if a person under the age of 18 is somehow able to obtain tobacco products--which, it is painfully clear, they are easily able to do--there are only a few States that have enacted laws regarding the possession of tobacco by these young people. I find it incredibly hypocritical that we, as a government (either Federal or State), are so willing to make buying tobacco illegal but are virtually silent on possessing tobacco. Following the lead of my home State of Texas, I have introduced the Youth Tobacco Possession Prevention Act of 1998. This bill would encourage States to pass legislation making it illegal for a person under the age of 18 to possess tobacco. There are two key components to this bill. First, in dealing with the youth, it focusses on education rather than punishment. For first and second time offenders, youth will be required to complete tobacco education and cessation programs, as well as tobacco related community service. If they continue to disregard the law and their health, their driver's license would be suspended from three to six months. This last resort was suggested during one of our Subcommittee hearings by a local teenager, who told the Commerce Health Subcommittee that kids would only respond to this type of approach. Second, the bill would require States to enact stern punishments for people over the age of 18 who provide tobacco products to youth. At that same hearing, many of our teen witnesses admitted one of the primary sources of tobacco are older people who buy for teens. This is simply not acceptable. I believe every adult has the responsibility and moral obligation to do whatever we can to prevent our nation's youth from starting this deadly habit. Unlike many proposals, this bill will not punish States who choose not to enact the outlined legislation. It will, however, reward those States which act responsibly and do. Each State that passes the provisions outlined in this bill will receive 5 additional points on their Health and Human Services competitive public health service grant applications. This incentive will hopefully encourage States to take action and do the right thing.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, like a lot of my colleagues today, I would like to thank both the Chairman and our Ranking Member and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the fine work on H.R. 2400. I believe it is good not only for our Nation but also for the State of Texas that I represent and also for the district and the community I represent of Houston. BESTEA is the fairest and best bill for donor States such as Texas because it guarantees that each State receives back at least 95 percent of the amount it pays out in gasoline taxes. Transportation funds are imperative for a State as large as Texas, and we need a transportation funding bill that makes sure we receive adequate funds just to maintain the safety on our roads and highways. As a border State, Texas is impacted by large amounts of traffic resulting from trade with Mexico. This high volume of traffic passes through I-69, which runs through the middle of my district. We must make sure that funds are included for trade corridors such as I-69 because NAFTA has so dramatically increased the traffic through Texas. Also, ISTEA originally was based on intermodal. With the Port of Houston and I-69, it makes that intermodal transportation work. In addition, I support BESTEA because it recognizes the importance of demonstration projects to solve local transportation problems. For 5 years, as a Member of Congress, I have worked with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on a grade separation project; and I am glad to see it is in this bill. This project protects the lives of not only the residents and people who work in the Manchester community in East Houston but, again, it is the definitive reason we need demonstration projects on intermodal transportation, a grade separation over nine tracks that will be great for the business community but also for the residents there. Funding these demonstration projects such as this is long overdue and must be protected in BESTEA authorization.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for yielding me this time. Again the name keeps changing every session. I rise in opposition to the bill. I spoke earlier on the rule. I am glad to have the opportunity to close, because, one, I think this legislation is misguided. The opposition is based on, one, it is a closed rule. There are some of us who would like to have a real debate on labor law reform. Yet from what I understood in committee, the bill came out on a party line vote and here on the floor those of us who may not serve on the committee anymore do not have the opportunity to offer amendments to correct what we see in the legislation. That is why the bill's intent is misguided, but it also did not give us the opportunity today to change it. The bill withdraws the benefits of free enterprise to the employees. We heard a lot today about free enterprise is great, and it is. We are all products of the free enterprise system. But it includes both the employers and the employees, and that is what this bill takes away, the free enterprise of the employees. This free enterprise system is the greatest in the world and it is the greatest in the world because of the last 50 to 60 years we have recognized that. It has both sides of the bargaining table. This takes away even a level playing field. I do not think the playing field is level today even between the employee and the employer, but this makes it even more unlevel. That is why this bill is so wrong. I guess I have a concern because only 14 percent of the workforce in the United States is unionized. Granted, there are efforts to organize, but 14 percent. This is like taking a bomb that you could use a fly swatter for if you really needed it. This is so overwhelming for that 14 percent that are unionized. Maybe next year if this bill is not passed, maybe it is 15 percent, but we have not had this bill in the law and that percentage of unionization has actually gone down. So what is the need for the legislation? Except to pay back a debt or to pay back what may have happened last year during the elections because organized labor tried to make sure that those of us on the floor of the House understand that, sure, they may be union bosses but they also represent workers and they represent employees to try and have that level playing field. We do need real labor law reform, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to have seen a real debate today and a real give and take for labor law reform, to say, yes, okay, maybe you do not like what is happening with salting. Maybe you do not like that. Also I do not like what happens because I see people who do sign cards or do have an election that may take them years before they actually have a contract or have that representation that they voted for. To this day we see people who are fired from their jobs because they voted for a union. It takes them years to get that job back. They ultimately may. But justice delayed is justice denied. That is what is happening today. That is why this bill is so wrong. I asked earlier under the rule, because I happen to have a card in the union, I did my apprenticeship as a printer but I also went to law school. I said I had learned how to read law as well as print a newspaper. What worries me about page 4 of the bill is where it says, ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide employee applicant.'' My concern is that definition of bona fide employee. I looked in the report. I am concerned that the person who makes that hiring decision out there in the real world will not know what is in this report and does not even have the standard of law. If we want to make sure that they are not going to discriminate against someone because they had a union card or maybe they were a former union member, then we need to put it into law and put those protections in here. That is why this bill ought to be defeated tonight. If it is not defeated, I hope to be able to stand here and oppose it, also, when the President vetoes it.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Again I am concerned about how it works in the real marketplace.

Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield, I will be glad to read the section, because I may have done my apprenticeship as a printer but I also went to law school and learned how to read the law. ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring an employer to employ any person who is not a bona fide applicant.'' My concern is the definition of bona fide is going to be made by that person making that decision to hire that person. That is my concern.

Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will let me respond, I will be glad to read him the section of the law that I have the concern about.

Mr. GREEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my colleague from north Texas. Although I have to admit the free enterprise system is great, what concerns me about this bill is, it removes the free enterprise system from the employees. The Fairness for Small Business Employees Act of 1998 more appropriately should be called the antiworker freedom bill of 1998. This Republican bill allows businesses to fire or refuse to hire employees based on their union affiliation. What concerns me is that this will now be used, if I went and applied right now for a job in a printing company because maybe I had at one time been a union member and maybe still am, I could not be hired based on that purpose, Mr. Speaker. And that is what this bill is allowing us to do. I call the sponsors' attention to page 4 of the bill, where it says ``a bona fide employee applicant.'' That language in there will allow that person making that hiring to say, you are not a bona fide employee just because you happen to maybe have been a union member or maybe a current union member, even if you are not an organizer. Furthermore, it would allow employers to discriminate against people who might try to organize in the workplace by simply refusing to hire them. How can you discriminate or even determine someone who might be a union member or former union member? These type of characteristics are not determined by physical characteristics, such as eye color or hair color. What is next? Maybe we are going to discriminate against individuals because maybe their religious beliefs maybe have more propensity to be a union member. Maybe Christian employees should not apply for businesses that maybe have a different religion. Is that what we are getting to in our country? I think we are taking away the freedom of employees, in some cases the freedom of businesses to be able to say, ``We're not going to hire you based on you may be a union organizer.'' I think that would leave such a gaping hole in our law. This rule does not allow us to amend that, Mr. Speaker. That is what is wrong with this rule. This bill would overturn a unanimous 1995 Supreme Court decision which held that a union organizer employed by a company was entitled to the same protections as any other employee. My concern is that just because I am a union member and I may vote for a union if I worked at a nonunion company, this bill would allow me to be called a union organizer just as a union member. That is what this bill would allow us to do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, the owners of the National Football League voted Monday to provide Cleveland with an expansion franchise, the 31st NFL team. The Cleveland team will be known as the Browns and will begin playing in 1999. Congratulations to Cleveland and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes); they are finally going to get a football team. Last year the gentleman from Ohio introduced H.R. 2699 after losing their professional football team. He wanted to protect cities from losing their professional sports teams. I cosponsored this bill. Sports are a way in which people identify with their hometown and take pride in their hometown. As a Member of Congress from Houston, we also lost our team last year. When we think of Houston, we think of oil. We think maybe of the Houston Oilers. Do we really think of the Tennessee Oilers? Houston is the fourth largest city. There should be a professional football team in Houston. I hope the NFL owners will even the number to number 32 and approve an expansion team to Houston. Again, congratulations to Cleveland. Hopefully, with this example of an expansion franchise, we might just see another football team in Houston again soon.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for allowing me to rise in support of H.R. 992. Right now, property owners who have suffered a ``taking'' must elect between suing for monetary relief in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims or injunctive relief from Federal district courts. Currently, this split jurisdiction hurts property owners. The Tucker Act makes the property owner choose between the two courts. By doing so, an individual can never receive full relief from an uncompensated Fifth Amendment taking. H.R. 992 would permit private property owners to fully recover from a taking in either court by amending the Tucker Act. H.R. 992 gives both the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims concurrent jurisdiction to hear all of the claims relating to a Fifth Amendment taking. In essence, we have stripped away the confusion, delays and the procedural issues that may make it difficult for a property owner to have their case heard. H.R. 992 also addresses the issues revolving around section 1500 of the Tucker Act. Section 1500 denies the Federal Court of Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit pending in another court brought by the same plaintiff. This makes the filing of the Fifth Amendment takings case more complex and costly. The Tucker Shuffle Relief Act clarifies the law to state that either the district court or the Federal claims court can have jurisdiction, ending this ambiguity in the law, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 992 and urge its passage.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Again, it is just some guidance so people will know that if they make that call for pre-clearance, that if that decision is made that they have some appeal process, and that is just fair. I do not want to particularly go hire a lawyer to do it, I just want to have some process that that layperson can do. The confidentiality of medical records, I know it is part of the President's plan; and also, with what we are concerned about with genetic privacy, we need to make sure that our medical records are as confidential as possible and yet still allow for research. But with what is happening in the National Institutes of Health and the discovery of genetic makeup of ourselves, we need to make sure that we protect individuals so that they are not excluded from health care because of their genetic makeup that they do not have anything to do with, because we are forcing them then onto the public system where all taxpayers have to pay. In the patient participation in medical decisions, during our town hall meeting on health care about 8 days ago I had a hospital come in, it is Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, that is a secondary HMO, because they only deal with children, and they talked about the scenario that they are a recent HMO, they have only gotten in the business as a PSO or provider service organization. But one of the things they want to do is sit down, and they are doing it with the parents and the children, so that the parents will know, and it is even more important with children, because as a parent we are concerned about what happens to our children, so we want to make sure that those decisions are made cooperatively and that we understand what is happening with our children. Like I said earlier, similar protections have been made in health insurance reform, like I said, in the State of Texas and also in New Jersey, but the State of Texas reform is being challenged by one of the insurance carriers. But the problem exists here on the Federal level. The States can only do so much, and we have to respond to our constituents. I know I have a colleague from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who has a health care background, is a nurse, and I have had the honor of serving with the gentlewoman for 25 years, and I have always looked for her guidance with her health care background because I do not have any health care background. I was a printer and a lawyer and a business manager. So the gentlewoman has been able for many years as a State legislator and here in Congress to help bring us that perspective to us in Congress. But that is why it is so important for us in Congress to respond, whether it is the Norwood bill, or Pallone bill, or Dingell bill. No matter what we do, we have to address the need for reform and the way health care and managed care and HMOs are delivered, and follow the lead of a lot of States that have tried to do this as best they can with the State insurance policies. We have to do it on a national basis.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for requesting this hour special order talking about managed care and patient protection. A lot of folks, though, and I found out in my own district in Houston, I represent a very urban district, we had a managed care town hall meeting not yesterday, but the week before, and just asked senior citizens, average working folks, we had physicians, providers, even some hospital representatives come talk about managed care. What I found out is that first of all, for the discussion tonight, we need to make sure that people know that some States like New Jersey and Texas have passed legislation but that only covers insurance policies or HMOs that are licensed to practice in that State. A great many employers come under what we call the ERISA Act. It is a Federal act that was passed in the early 1970s. Because so many of our employers are multi-State and sometimes multinational, an employer in Texas and New Jersey, obviously, they would not want to have to jump through both restrictions in each State, so Congress passed something that said, okay, you can come under Federal law for your health care, and so many of our constituents now come under Federal law. So what is happening, though, is that we are lagging behind some of the innovative efforts that States are doing to provide for more patient protections. Both the bill of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and of course the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has his bill that has over 200 cosponsors, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and I are members of the Democratic Health Care Task Force where we are working on legislation that will be similar on managed care reform, patient protection reform. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member on the Committee on Commerce, is putting that together and will be the lead sponsor on that. We need to ensure that every American enrolled in an HMO or a PPO or a PSO, also known as managed care, gets first-rate health care with benefits and the quality and the protections that both they come to expect and that they also deserve. Americans should not be required to give up access to their quality health care just because we in Congress are not doing our job in bringing the Federal law into the same realm that the private industry is doing. The gentleman and I were both here in 1993 and 1994 when we heard the fear of government-run insurance. Well, we did not pass any of those bills and now we do not have government-restricted care, we have industry-run insurance. So we have seen the fear of 1994 and 1994 come to light, and in 1996, 1997 and 1998, because we are seeing restriction in choice, and it is not because the government is telling someone that they have to do it, it is because the market is doing that. Employers are trying to cut the cost for their bottom line, and I understand that and I am for that, but I also know that is what one can do, when we are seeing a cutting of the cost and also a cutting of the benefits and what people are assuming hopefully will be quality health care. There are some great managed care networks in our country, and some of them are really good. What I would like is just to have, whether it be the Norwood bill or the Pallone bill or the Dingell bill, that would just give some guidance to managed care networks in our country so people will know what they can expect, that they have some flexibility; that, importantly, they should not lose control of the decisions regarding their personal health care. Although I have to admit trends are bleak unless we pass legislation, the picture is limits on access, limits on information, and even limits on accountability. The trend is not acceptable and must be corrected by those of us who the people elect in Congress to deal with that. An individual in my district, they do not have the ability to negotiate. Their employer often does, and I have even had employers who come up to me and say, ``I would like to have some guidance.'' Our concern is to provide the best care for our employees at the cheapest rate and the cheapest price. But there is bound to be a convergence of that, and I do not think we are seeing that, whether it be in my district or around the country. It is time for the managed care companies, the insurance companies and the plans to be more accountable in delivering quality care and respecting basic human rights, consumer rights. By setting this standard and the guidelines, what we could have will be an effective tool for delivery of first-rate health care. But it also will give people, the consumer, the ability to know that when they go out on the market, whether it is as an employer or employee, they will also know some of the guidelines that each company that is bidding on their business would have to comply with. Our health care task force and our full committee and our subcommittee, we have not had as many hearings as I would like to have, but our Democratic Health Care Task Force has adopted an agenda that will assure patients high-quality health care by requiring these HMOs or insurance companies or managed care plans to provide patients with access to specialists, coverage for emergency services which cannot be denied by the plan. I have heard it, and I have heard it from other Members of Congress, and I have had constituents who have gone to an emergency room because they had chest pains, and because they did not have time to pre-clear going to a different hospital than was on their plan, their plan will not pay for it because their chest pains turned out to not be a heart attack. Well, the gentleman and I are not physicians and we are not the people, and neither are our constituents, that should diagnose their illnesses. They go immediately because we know with heart conditions, the quicker you get to health care, the better. So that is why it is important to have easy access to emergency services. Also, internal and external appeals process, so if someone is watching who is making those decisions, that is what is important; and then confidentiality of medical records.