Gene Green

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me time. I would also thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for bringing not only the bill, but this amendment here, because this is what is going to bring us together, I hope. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), I understand that English language does bring us together, but we have more in common than just our language. As a Nation we are held together by love of liberty and freedom, no matter what language we speak and no matter how we speak English, because we speak English in different ways, from Texas to Maine, to Boston to Florida and everywhere else. But that is what this amendment talks about. Let me read the language for the Members who are maybe watching in their offices. ``The official language requirements of the Federal Government shall apply to Puerto Rico in the same manner as and the same extent as throughout the United States.'' If the citizens of Puerto Rico make a decision for statehood, they will come in on the same level as the citizens of Texas. You can come to Texas and speak Spanish, you can come and speak English; but if you go into a courtroom, you are going to speak English or have a translator. They could speak whatever language they want, because that is the freedom we enjoy. I have people in Texas who are proud to be German and speak German, but when they go to court they have to have an English translation. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Burton amendment.

Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. Chairman. I also join with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) who says he is working every day to speak English, and so am I, to improve on our use of the language. But I will never speak English like they do in New York or Boston or even other parts of our country. I oppose the Solomon amendment and support the substitute amendment. To make English our official language limits our Nation. English is our official language. It is our common language. We always have used English. It did not take a law in this Congress to do that. It has not taken 200 years to do it. We do it because we want to. To file a document in court in the United States, or a public record, it has to be in English or an English translation. Our citizenship ceremonies are in English, even though we did have one aberration of a Federal judge doing it in Arizona. But it has to be in English, by statute. Furthermore, English only is unwarranted because two of our States, New Mexico and Hawaii, have two official languages. In Hawaii it is English and Hawaiian, and in New Mexico it is English and Spanish. I hope the Puerto Rican voters would choose statehood and integrate English into their language.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, America has a deep and strong commitment to public education. Education is a need for all Americans. Public education needs to be available for all Americans, not just a select few. In America we try to provide education for everyone. Vouchers take away valuable resources from public education and provide it only to that select few. This program is not about school choice. It is about destroying the public education system and leaving the majority of America's youth without a choice and without a good education. Today we have a fine group of young Texans from El Paso who attend public schools, who are here with us in Washington. Public education provides an opportunity for their future. It provides opportunity to many families not only in my own district but throughout our Nation who choose public education.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, the need for managed health care reform is growing every day. We hear numerous complaints from our constituents and concerns about managed care and how it limits their ability to make medical decisions on their own. This coming Monday, March 2, is a special day. One, it is also Texas Independence Day, but also we are holding a town hall meeting in Houston, Texas, to talk about managed care reform and to hear from the constituents in my home district. It will be at Houston Community College Southeast from 1:00 to 4:00. We need to take action now after hearing from our constituents on solving the problems of managed care. A patient deserves a managed care plan that meets their needs, but also provides quality health care at an affordable rate. A patient's bill of rights will ensure that providers, not insurance companies, make medical decisions for patients. We also need to ensure that patients receive high quality health care by guaranteeing their access to specialists, guaranteeing their ability to go to the emergency room without preclearance, and participation in medical decisions about their conditions. We need patients to have these options now, not wait until next year.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for this special order, but also for the issue, managed care and managed health care. I was interested when my colleague, the gentleman from Chicago, was discussing the managed care issues in his community. I would like to talk about it in mine, not only in the State of Texas but in Houston. My concern is we need to be more concerned about the patients' rights and establishing some standards for managed health care plans. We all have to live by parameters. If you drive on the road, you have to live by the speed limits. You have to live by rules and regulations. That is what I would like to see this Congress address, is something that would protect the patients' rights, and establishing standards for managed health care plans, which a great many of them already comply with, Mr. Speaker. But I think we would like to see that as knowledgeable consumers, people would be able to know that, and know that they have certain rights and certain requirements on whatever managed care plan they have. Ever since their existence, managed care health plans have determined what medical procedures would and would not be covered for the patients. We need to guarantee patients will receive quality health care from their managed care plans. We need to hold managed care companies accountable for providing quality health care, instead of just being concerned about their bottom line. We are a free enterprise system in our country. All of us in business are interested in making a profit, but that is also why we have government regulations. If it is a State health plan, then you have a State agency. In Texas, our State Commission on Insurance is one that regulates health plans in the State of Texas. They set the guidelines for health plans in Texas, and now we need some guidelines on national plans. But more importantly, we need to be concerned. We need to protect that patient's rights. I am a cosponsor of the bill of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). It is a bipartisan piece of legislation to protect patients' rights and to establish standards for managed health care. I know there are other options. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) also has a bill. There is a health care task force within the Democratic Caucus that is working on that. Our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell) has been putting that together, and hopefully we will see it. So there are lots of options out here, and it is a bipartisan concern that we need to deal with. The legislation, whether it is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) or any other ``Woods'' should require employer health plans to allow employees to select their own personal physicians, for example. That is what Congressman Norwood's bill would do. Patients would have the rights to choose their own doctor, a doctor who meets their personal needs. It would eliminate preauthorization requirements for emergency room visits and pay for specialists' care recommended by a primary doctor. One of the concerns I have heard from my own constituents is that, oftentimes, for emergency room care, they really do not know what kind of illness they may be having. For example, I have used, and I heard this used to me from my constituents, if I have chest pains, I do not know whether it is a heart attack or it may be indigestion. And the only place to know that is to go to an emergency room. So that is why preauthorization for emergency room visits may not be practical in the real world. If you are badly injured or severely ill, you should not have to worry about your insurance. You should be more concerned, and rightfully so, about your health and getting the needed help you get. Your health should be your primary concern. According to a study from the American College of Emergency Physicians, 94 percent of emergency room visits have been allocated to an injured person. So 94 percent of those emergency room visits, they are not someone who thinks they have the flu or have a fever. They are actually to an injured person. In most cases of injury, there is not an ample enough amount of time to call or get approval for an emergency room visit. If there is a 24- hour phone line for preauthorization for emergency room treatment, again, most of the time, the concern is for the health care need and not necessarily for the authorization. Congressman Norwood's legislation would also help patients who have been denied care to appeal their decisions to a mutual third party. Patients should be allowed the right to file a claim regarding their health coverage. And a third party neutral would ensure quality health care for patients unlike current managed care regulations oftentimes. It would also allow patients to sue health plans for damages under the State malpractice law. In other words, if a person's health care plan makes the medical decision, then that patient would then have the right, instead of suing their doctor or whatever provider, they can say, well, that health care was denied by my health plan. In fact, the State of Texas this last legislative session in 1997 passed that legislation on a very bipartisan vote. And it was sponsored by a Republican State senator to make sure that where the decision making is at is also where the responsibility is at. And that is what's important. I would hope whatever bill, I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood's) bill has it and whatever bill we consider would also say we have responsibility for our decisions whether you are an individual or whether you are a health care plan. Current Federal law allows self-insured employers to exempt themselves from State regulation governing both pension and health benefit plans and often prevents individuals from having that opportunity to seek legal redress for their health care plans. That is under the ERISA preemption. We like the ERISA preemption. I have companies in my District who need to have ability to have a health care plan that covers, not only their employees in Houston, Texas, but also their employees in Louisiana or Seattle or anywhere else. That is why it is so important on a Federal level. This cannot be handled just on the State level. On the Federal level, we have to provide some guidelines for these plans that may not be licensed by the State but do business in the State, but they come under Federal law. Health care needs need to be held to a standard, a standard that provides that quality health care to patient at all times by providing quality health care such as in the Norwood legislation and again in other legislation that the House we hope we will consider will provide patients with medical options. One of the medical options is that any time there is a managed care plan, and I know this is in the Democratic Task Force plan that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. John Dingell) has been working on, that will allow an individual that their employer may only be able to afford a managed care plan. But they would offer them at the employee's expense to be able to upgrade that to a different plan a point a service plan or something else. That, again, just brings options into health care. And having been in a business where we oftentimes had trouble being able to justify the increasing in health care premiums, I know what has happened in the industry the last few years. Businesses want to try and cut their costs or cut the increasing costs in health care premiums. And so that is why managed care has been so successful. It has limited the cost, but in a lot of cases we are also seeing a limit in the ability of the service to the people that are supposed to be served, the employees or the patients. Hopefully, our managed care reform legislation will give patients a greater range of medical options instead of restricting them. Managed care originally was an ideal program to say patients will have other options, they will have wellness care, for example. Because, again, it is much better to provide immunizations and provide checkups on an annual basis before there is a need. Checkups catch things like diabetes, and that is what managed care was originally about. There are a lot of great managed care plans in our country. What we need to do, again on a congressional level, is provide some guidelines for managed care companies to live by. If they are licensed by the State with State regulations, then the State can take care of that. But also on the Federal level, and that is our job as Members of Congress. Let us provide patients with options to make the right choice for their health care, at the same time being mindful of the cost considerations of employers and people who have to pay those premiums. Mr. Speaker, I know that is the important part and I would hope tonight that during this managed care reform discussion in the Congress over the next few months, that will be one of the issues we deal with.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I stand here today for my 1-minute to talk about our schedule in Congress. And even though personally I think we enjoy it, I heard 2 weeks ago we have a vote schedule that a French trucker would strike for. What we need to do is deal with tax reform, IRS reform. We need to make sure we continue that balanced budget effort and safeguard Social Security first, just like the President said here in January. We also need to work on modernizing public schools. We need to make sure we have the teachers and the smaller class sizes there to help make sure those children are prepared for the next century. The other thing that hopefully we will do this session is establish a Patient's Bill of Rights, whether it is the Norwood bill that we have or a number of other bills that are being introduced to set some parameters on people getting health care. That is what this Congress needs to deal with. Madam Speaker, we do not need to have a schedule that is light. We need to have a schedule that works for the American people.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1428. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1428, the Voter Eligibility Verification Act. This bill is designed to undermine the voter turnout of our country's naturalized citizens. How does this bill achieve this goal? H.R. 1428 allows local and state election officials to pull anyone's name and submit it to either INS or to the Social Security Administration for verification of citizenship. If the name can not be confirmed by either agency, this bill will force the voter to provide citizenship verification to the local voter registrar. Therefore if my name could not be confirmed, I would need to present my birth certificate or passport to vote. Who are the targets of H.R. 1428? The targets are citizens whose names may seem questionable to election officials. Where will they start this search? Are they going to start with Green, Smith, or Jones? Or are they going to start the search with Gonzales, Torres, or Jiminez? Conceivably, this bill would allow election officials to send the names of whole neighborhoods for verification. In Texas we have this ability now to challenge voters. I support all efforts to stop voter fraud. However, this bill does seem to target our immigrant population. I urge my colleagues to oppose this anti-immigrant bill.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, to show the support of Texas for the sea grant reauthorization, I rise in support of the National Sea Grant College program. The National Sea Grant College program was established in 1966 to provide wide stewardship over our marine and coastal resources. It is a partnership between universities, States, communities and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The mission of the sea grant program is to promote and sponsor research and education and outreach aimed at the wise use of resources and the development and effective management and conservation programs that target our Nation's coastal and marine resources. Texas A&M university has a Sea Grant College at Galveston, Texas which is actually in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). The program has spread throughout the Gulf Coast of Texas and throughout the whole State. I represent the port of Houston. So my home State of Texas allows individuals to learn about the ocean and the coastal environments and innovative marine technologies. The 29th district that I represent has the port of Houston and the port plays a vital part in our economy and the livelihood of our surrounding communities. Texas A&M's Sea Grant College provides business owners, fishermen and the community groups that live and work along the port of Houston with information on how to achieve the most benefits economically while responsively conserving the environment. Without the sea grant program, the citizens of Texas and our Nation will not stay current and be innovative and competitive with the rest of the world. By reauthorizing the Sea Grant College program through the year 2003, we have ensured that we will train our future citizens, future citizens who will not only look to protect our oceans and coastal areas but also be trained to properly manage our marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. This bill makes significant improvements in the sea grant program by streamlining the proposal review process, reducing the administrative costs and clarifying the Federal and university roles in the program. This program, in its 30- year history, has proven its value and worth to our country. I rise in support of the bill and I thank my colleague from Hawaii for yielding me the time and also the chairman of committee for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, America has a commitment to public education, an education which is a requirement for our country to be competitive in this world. Public education needs to be available to all Americans. It is not designed to educate just a few Americans. We want to educate everyone. We should not take scarce public education funds and use it to support private institutions that only educate a few. Vouchers are the solution of my Republican colleagues to help education, but it is but a drop in the ocean of need. Education opportunity, smaller class sizes, more qualified teachers are what America's youth need. Safer schools. We debate national tests today and vouchers. We are not seeing the forest for the trees. Let us deal with public education with more qualified teachers, safer schools, and make sure we educate everyone and not just a few.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, by ``this guy,'' I think my colleague is referring to the President of the United States. Is that correct? So I would hope that after yesterday, when we named that airport for a former president, it is obvious that he will continue to respect the current president that was elected in 1992 and reelected in 1996, instead of just referring to him as ``this guy.'' Like a lot of my colleagues, Madam Speaker, I am not particularly thrilled about a national test. We have lots of State tests and everything else. But this bill is so premature I think it is ludicrous. The number one concern of America's people is improving our Nation's schools. Americans are concerned about school children being required to attend classes that are overcrowded, school facilities that are falling down, schools that are not being held to accountable results. And yet, what do we get? The first bill out on education is to prohibit a national test. I do not want a national test. The first bill we ought to do is say, okay, how can we fix the public schools instead of stopping the national test? Instead of bringing bills forward that address these critical concerns, we are seeing this bill today. Nothing can happen on a national test until this Congress approves it, whether it be reauthorization or whether it be some other agreement. This bill is a waste of our time. We ought to be spending more time talking about fixing public education instead of this bill and talking about vouchers that supposedly are going to save everything. This bill is completely unnecessary, and it is an attack on our bipartisan agreement last year. Why are my Republican colleagues wasting this time in the House? One of the reasons is that they do not have anything else to do. But the answer is that the Republicans, my colleagues, do not really have a pro-education agenda. They do not really want to fix overcrowding. They do not want to put more qualified teachers in the schools. They do not want to fix it to make sure that the schools are safe. They do not want to work with the States and the local communities to make sure education is a national concern and a national issue. But it is really local folks in the school districts in our States who do most of the work. But we need to be the ones that say, hey, let us help. Prohibiting a national test is, again, a waste of time. Many educational reforms, such as reducing the class size, building safer schools, training more teachers are much more important than some straw person that we are throwing up here, ``We are going to fight a national test.'' Again, there is not a demand for a national test. Last year, we had almost 300 Members of Congress, and I was one of them. I do not mind a voluntary national test that says, okay, State of Texas, you have lots of tests. But this is what we would like to do. See if we can correlate those tests. Let us do it. But it is voluntary. That is what that agreement called for, and that is what I hope the Department of Education is working for. This bill is a make-work legislation. It does nothing to make education more effective or better.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have the opportunity to follow the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), my colleague from Texas and Majority Leader. I think there is such a diversity in what we can talk about because both the Majority Leader and my Republican colleagues' solution to our education problems is vouchers. Let us give vouchers to a small number of children instead of fixing the big problem. That is the difference that I want to talk about today. Let us fix public education. Let us not abandon it. Let us not take away and give vouchers for a small segment, 7,500 that the gentleman talks about, when we have thousands that need help. I do not want to abandon public education and only help a few. Mr. Speaker, that is why I join a lot of my Democratic colleagues today saying let us fix the problems rather than saying that vouchers are the solution. That is not a solution. That is a short-term, one- time solution for one child. Let us talk about the millions of children that are in public education. Public education educates millions of children around the country, compared to what private and church-based education can do. There is just not enough private and church-based education to do what they want to do. We need to fix the problems for the millions and not the few; that is what is important today. My children went to public schools in Texas in an urban environment, and now they attend a public university in Texas. The image that people may have that in Congress a lot of our children go to private schools, that is just not true. Students can get an adequate public education in public schools as well as they can in private schools. It takes parental involvement, it takes dedicated teachers, and it takes business-community partnerships. President Clinton last week in his State of the Union talked about some of the new initiatives that we need to do, including preparing children for the future. The President and Members, whether it be President, Member of Congress, a doctor, lawyer, engineer, business owner, whatever, that is our job as a Member of Congress and leader of our country, to be able to prepare the children who are in school now, whether it be in the D.C. schools or the schools in my district in Houston, Texas. One of those initiatives that he talked about is the Head Start program. The President committed to Head Start for one million children, expanding it to one million children. I know in Harris County our Head Start program for a number of years has had problems, but we are fixing it. They serve now over 5,000 students, needy preschoolers. What we are doing now with the help of both the independent school districts in our community, with Health and Human Service employees and the staff that are helping, we have an interim provider providing the service for 70 percent of those children. We are going to fix it even more by providing a long-term solution for those children in Head Start; and we need to expand it, whether it be in Harris County or all across this great Nation. We are fixing our problem locally, but we also need to make sure that the funds are there for those children when we can expand it. Head Start works. It works to give children, when they show up at that kindergarten or the public schools or first grade, that same start, that same opportunity as those children whose parents could afford prekindergarten programs. President Clinton proposed a lot of other great programs for expanding education and making sure that the next generation of Americans can stand in the place that we do and a lot of our colleagues do, to take over the job that a lot of us do here on the floor or also in lots of businesses and places all across the country, including reducing the class size to 18-to-1. In Texas, we reduced our class size in the 1980s for kindergarten through fourth grade by mandate that the schools could not have more than 22-to-1 in kindergarten through fourth grade. I would like to see that on a national basis. Again, it is tough to pay for it and tough to have facilities; and that is another thing that the President asked for. For the first time, we will actually see the Federal Government helping with facilities construction. It is great to talk about lowering class size, but we have to have buildings, and we have to have teachers. We have to have Federal assistance. Not a great deal of money, because it is not going to help any one district, but it will help leverage a lot of our districts that are having trouble providing facilities. Also, he talked about the 100,000 new teachers, if we are going to have smaller class size, 100,000 new teachers helping our children. That is preparing for the next generation of our country, not just a quick fix to have vouchers for a small group of children who are fortunate enough to have a voucher. Another one of the President's proposals was the Education Opportunity Zones. The Department of Education would select 50 high- poverty urban or rural districts who use high standards of tests for their children, provide the help to teachers and students and schools who need it, prevent students from falling behind by ensuring quality curriculum and teaching and also end social promotion. I think that is something on this floor that we can probably agree upon on a bipartisan basis. We do not need to continue to promote someone if they are not making the grade in their current district. We are not doing that child a favor. There are so many good things that I could talk about. I look forward to engaging my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in really dealing with education issues.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, as we end this session of Congress, we need to celebrate our successes, but also recognize our failures. Many Americans are concerned about the status of their health care. They worry that in an emergency their managed care provider will not pay for the needed services. If a person has chest pains, how do they know it is indigestion instead of a heart attack? And yet, managed care may not pay for it. People are worried that nonmedical professionals are making their medical decisions instead of their doctors. Congress should have passed a managed care reform bill that protects patients and still keeps costs low. We need to ensure that all managed care patients are covered by consumer protections and have greater choice in deciding the type of health care they receive. If we truly believe in consumer choice, we must give workers more than the one option that their employers provide them, including greater access to specialists. Mr. Speaker, Americans are beginning to believe they are being herded through our health care system, and they are starting to lose trust in it. We should pass legislation next year that provides needed consumer protections for health care. We should have passed it in 1997, but maybe we will do a better job next year.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I was saddened to learn of the murder of four Americans in Pakistan who were employed by Houston-based Union Texas Petroleum. in addition, their Pakistani driver was also murdered. Although no direct link has been found, many suspect that this deliberate act of cold-hearted murder may be revenge for the murder conviction of a Pakistani in Virginia. I would like to express my heart-felt condolences to the families and friends of Ephraim Egbu, Joel Enlow, Larry Jennings and Tracy Ritchie. You are in our thoughts and prayers. The murder of these courageous Americans is an outrage, and I call on the Pakistani Government to conduct a full and exhaustive investigation into this tragedy and to punish all those responsible. Justice delayed is, truly, justice denied. We must always remember, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an injustice anywhere is an affront to justice everywhere. This is a terrible and tragic loss. In Congress, we speak of the many tragedies that occur all over the world, especially to Americans. Although Americans continue to be at risk in many parts of the world, they faithfully carry out their duties and are not deterred by senseless instances, such as this one. The Union Texas employees stationed in Pakistan are no exception. Union Texas Petroleum has been active in exploring for, developing and producing oil and gas in Pakistan for over 20 years. The company has approximately 600 employees in Pakistan, 21 of whom are American citizens. The management and employees of Union Texas have been leaders in supporting the communities in Pakistan where Union Texas operations exist and have funded the construction of numerous schools, colleges for young women and young men, medical clinics, and mosques, and have provided relief during natural disasters and other emergencies in Pakistan. Union Texas has been a good corporate citizen in Pakistan, and it is sad that such a needless and tragic event has been targeted at a company dedicated to sharing its resources with their host country. This is a terrible loss for the families and friends of the victims, and for Union Texas.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, there is a special place in hell for people in groups who scare seniors to raise money. Senior citizens all over the country receive dozens of letters a week, mass mailings from supposedly nonpartisan groups that confuse and frighten seniors in asking for their money to save Medicare and Social Security, letters like this one from some group called the United Senior' Association. This last week I had a senior citizen calling me after he got this letter and literally crying because he could not afford to send the money, and he wanted to make sure he could still have Medicare. After a while I think senior citizens groups and senior citizens become convinced the sky is falling from some of these groups. I represent a blue collar district, and I know that our seniors cannot afford to send $10, $15, $20 to these groups in Washington, DC or Virginia. While many of these groups are run by partisan groups, some by Democrats, some by Republicans, Republicans are not amused. In fact, I saw a dear colleague this week from my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. He had his own problems with these mailing list groups on the subject of Medicare private contracting. Admittedly, he and I come from different points of view, but we share the same problem from some of these groups.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, not only for the time this morning but also for the effort on this piece of legislation. I know it is a very bipartisan piece of legislation because about 2 weeks ago the President agreed to sign onto it. Even before that, there were a lot of Democrats who were interested in the issue, particularly shifting of the burden of proof, cosponsors of a bill by a Democratic Member, our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. The bill is a good effort because, one, it transfers the burden of proof to the IRS and again makes it fair for the taxpayer that they would know, going into the Tax Court, that the IRS has to show that someone is actually violating the law on taxes. Also, I think it is important because the President will continue the appointment of the commissioner. Even though we have an advisory board with some authority, we need to have an elected official. With the President being the one that does it with authority over the IRS, we do not need to delegate that to an appointed board because so often in any level of government, whether it be Federal, State, or even local government, the elected official needs to have the final version, the buck stops at the office of the President. And I think this is good because it leaves that authority in appointing the IRS commissioner with the White House and with the person, whoever the President may be. That is important. I think because of the hearings in the Senate last week or over the last 2 weeks, again, it is not something new. I know the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] knows it, a long time member of the Committee on Ways and Means, knows that this issue will, if we address it today, 2 years from now we may have to do it again. That is the way Government works. We try and correct problems now, and we will fix them again if we have to, whether it be next year or the year after. That is why Congress is in session, to correct problems for the people that we represent. That is why I think this bill is a good bill. I hope we can pass it both through the House and Senate and get it signed by the President.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas and a member of the Committee on Rules for allowing me to speak in support of not only the rule today, but also the IRS reform bill. As a cosponsor of the bill of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] earlier, I support one of the issues particularly that is in this bill, where the reform would allow for the burden of proof to be placed on the IRS instead of on the taxpayer, but I also want to compliment both the Democratic Members and the Republican Members and my colleague the gentleman from Houston, Texas [Mr. Archer], on the bill. I know from the Republican side, we hear this is a small step, but let me tell my colleagues, this is a much bigger step than it may be considered, because in my two terms here before, we did not get to this point, even during the last session of Congress, to get to the point where we can really talk about an IRS reform bill. Mr. Speaker, it is a bipartisan bill. I am glad the President decided to support it, but there are a number of Democrats who supported the issue long before the Committee on Ways and Means brought it up. If one is mistreated by a government agency, whether it be the IRS or HUD or anyone else, or EPA, it is not a Democratic or Republican problem, it is a problem that we all need to address, and that is why I think it is important that this bill is a bipartisan bill today. Again, I congratulate the people who put it together on the Committee on Ways and Means. I support the change that puts the burden of proof on the IRS, in tax disputes that come before the IRS tax court. People's lives have been turned into a living hell by a system that assumed they were guilty as charged and before they actually knew what they were guilty of. Again, I think we understand that that burden of proof is so important because if a person accused of a criminal crime in our country is innocent until proven guilty, we need to do that at least in the tax courts of our land. I am also pleased that the President will continue to appoint the IRS Commissioner and to remove the Commissioner at will. As we increase the power and the influence of the Independent Advisory Board, it is important to make sure the final authority rests with an elected office; and whether on the Republican side one agrees with this President or not, it is important that an elected official have that authority, because the buck stops there. Taxpayers also receive other rights in the bill, such as innocent spouses will no longer be held responsible by mistakes made by the other spouse on tax returns. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill and the rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the IRS reform bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill we have before us will bring much- needed reform to the Internal Revenue Service and Relief to those Americans who are audited to be treated fairly. As a long-time sponsor of the bill by Mr. Traficant, I support the change that will place the burden of proof on the IRS in most tax disputes that will come before the IRS Tax Court. As the recent congressional hearings demonstrated, people's lives have turned into a living hell by a system that assumed they were guilty as charged. I am also pleased the President will retain the ability to appoint the IRS Commissioner and to remove the Commissioner at will. As we increase the power and influence of the independent advisory board, it is important to place the final authority over the performance of the Commissioner with the President. The buck stops there. Taxpayers will also receive other rights on this bill: innocent spouses will no longer be held responsible for mistakes made by the other spouse on a tax return. And taxpayers will be able to sue the Government for civil damages caused by IRS employees who negligently disregard laws. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to see H.R. 2746 here again today. These are from the same folks who a few weeks ago characterized government-owned schools as a communist legacy. So now we have H.R. 2746 here to talk about how we are really going to educate children. Our Nation has the ability to provide the highest quality of public education in the world, but the question remains, who will receive this education? My Republican colleagues' answer is with the HELP Scholarship Act, again, a voucher program. The HELP Scholarship Act is a school voucher program that is intended to do nothing but harm public education because it is taking money out of what should be going to public education. This bill does nothing for the Nation's 50 million students who attend public schools. We are not defending public education here on the floor today by opposing this bill. We are defending those 50 million children who are in public education and need more resources, but they are taking away even current resources, money that should be used to improve the public schools and instead will go to a small number of students to pay for private and parochial schools. Private and parochial schools are great, but they should not have public funds to do it. This bill is not only unfair to those 50 million children who will not be able to participate, but I consider public education is an American legacy, not a communist legacy. The real challenge lies in not creating small privileges for a small number of students, but instead building a strong public education system that will provide for those 50 million students instead of taking it away. I believe the HELP Scholarship Act does not improve public education in America, but it threatens the public education of those 50 million children we are defending. There is no evidence to suggest that vouchers will lead to improved public education performance for all children. In fact, the voucher programs drain funds earmarked for improving public schools and directs them to private schools. The Republican voucher program fails to address the needs of public education and should be defeated tonight. The future of our children is too important to gamble on an untried and unrealistic proposal. Again, this is a bill in response to the same problem that we had a few weeks ago when they were calling public education a communist legacy by one of our colleagues from Colorado. This is their answer to solutions in the public schools. Let us work to make public schools better, not take funds away.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, we celebrate the opening of the Greater Houston Boys and Girls Club on October 14, 1997. When I was younger, I was a member of the Boys and Girls Club. This group gave me the opportunity to find myself and to grow into an adult. The Houston Boys and Girls Club has been in service since 1952. With this new Shell Branch, we will have a total of five facilities in the Greater Houston area. There is an incredible variety of activities at these centers from basketball to baseball to soccer to arts and crafts. There is something for everyone. I would personally like to applaud the efforts of the staff and volunteers at the Boys and Girls Club throughout Houston. They bring a strong commitment and dedication that we should all try to emulate. The Boys and Girls Club strive to instill in our youth a sense of competence, usefulness, belonging and of power and influence. Their mission takes our community's at-risk-youths off the street and provides them with a safe and positive environment that will lead them toward achieving a brighter future. The Boys and Girls Clubs build character. It helps our children to realize what is right and what is wrong. It helps them to make better informed decisions. It also helps to build relationships with other people. Programs such as Smart Moves and Smart Kids--which is an early prevention program has won national acclaim--keeps our young people off the street and away from drug, alcohol and tobacco. Additional Boys and Girls Club Programs provide young people with skills to develop into adults today. While one program--the Power Hour--is an extensive tutoring and education development program, another program--the Keystone Club--is dedicated to providing community and leadership skills to the young. These are just three of many programs offered by the Boys and Girls Club. With the opening of this fifth facility, we can see the dedication of the staff, volunteers and the community. The Boys and Girls Club is dedicated to developing the youth of this city and making them the best that they can be. I would ask that we return that same commitment to the Boys and Girls Clubs, and we make the extra effort to help them with whatever they need.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me this time. Listening to the debate earlier, we all support education and all the ways we can do it, and the opportunity to help families have their children to be prepared for tomorrow, but it is frustrating, as a Member of the House, that last week the solution to the education problems was vouchers for the District of Columbia and this week it is for an educational IRA that will only be for a specific higher income. And those numbers that the members of the Committee on Ways and Means have been talking about are reflected in a graph that I have here that shows my district, whose medium income is about $22,000, that is about the average for the country, in some cases, I believe, but it shows if an individual makes $33,000 to $55,000 their only tax break will be $7. But today we are having a special that says, OK, we are going to solve education by giving $7 back to a family with an income of $33,000 to $55,000. I wish we had quick fixes to education problems, but we do not. It takes hard work. And there are millions of parents, teachers, and even school administrators who care and love those children and that are not looking for quick-fix gimmicks like vouchers or even this IRA. America has always had a commitment to education, whether it be in private, parochial or in home school, or particularly where 90 percent of the students go, which is public education. This bill allows parents to set up a tax-free IRA of $2,500 per year, per child. What this proposes is that it will only let the wealthiest families participate and take advantage of it. Ninety percent of the students attend public education, yet those parents of poorer incomes or moderate incomes, under the numbers I see from the Committee on Ways and Means, they have to buy school uniforms and computers, but they cannot take advantage of this. This is not the solution for our educational problems. It takes hard work. Let us get away from some of the gimmicks and get back to really providing quality education. Quality education in public education is our Nation's gift for our children.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleague and say that we do need to reform the Tax Code and reform the IRS. Let us do it this year. Let us do it before we leave here in November. Let us take care of it now so the folks next year, when they pay their taxes, will be able to deal with it. I am going to talk about a bill that is on the calendar today. H.R. 2646 is a bill we will vote on today that will allow for IRA's for education expenses for elementary, secondary students. Public education has always been important to the United States. H.R. 2646 allows a parent to set up a tax-free IRA of $2,500 a year per child and that money could be used for subsidizing investment accounts for either public or private school extra expenses. However, the bill takes scarce Federal dollars and leaves out 90 percent of the students who attend public schools. This will cost the taxpayers $5 billion a year. Why should taxpayer money be redirected to a small few? Sixty-four percent of families with children under the age of 18 will not be able to participate in this bill. They have to buy uniforms and computers, too. Let us help most of the people, not a select few.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in support of the rule. But let me talk about a little problem I have with some of the reforms that the Housing and Urban Development Department is doing. I have had an ongoing dialog with HUD over the last 4 areas, and my main point of discussion is making sure that in the Houston area HUD offers all the program areas that serve the people in Houston, TX, the fourth largest city in the country, which they do not. The problem we have now is, HUD has a reform plan to refocus, streamline, and downsize the Department. In our Houston office we have over 100 HUD employees now. Now I hear that we are going to reduce them to 14. So those 14 are going to have to do the work of those over 100 employees. We do not even have all the program areas offered now in the Houston office, and yet, in this reorganization that has been going on now for a number of years, we are not going to have all the program areas offered in Houston. If they are offering them with 14 employees, they are not going to be able to do the job. HUD now, under the HUD 20/20 reform plan, they have developed two mission statements. The first is to empower people in communities to improve themselves and succeed in today's time of transition, and the second is to restore public trust by achieving and demonstrating competence. These are admirable goals, but I am not sure that releasing 85 employees or staffers will help achieve those goals and make HUD effective in the Houston markets. Again, this is not the first time I have said this and it will not be the last. I would hope Secretary Cuomo would be able to sit down with those of us who represent the Houston area and make sure that HUD can provide all the programs in Houston even if it is with reduced employees, but do not make it impossible.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to disassociate myself with any of this green tax stuff, but what I am here for this morning is to talk about the fact that every American child deserves a quality education. Quality education needs to be available to all students whether or not they can afford it. Many families in our districts cannot afford to send their children to private schools even with vouchers. School vouchers only address a small percentage of the children and they take away scarce dollars from public education. It is not our American heritage to make quality education only available to a few select children and then forget the rest. Unlike other countries, we strive to educate everyone, not just the elite. Education needs to be available to all Americans, not just the ones who can afford it. That is why in our Nation's recent history public education is for everyone. In a recent poll, 71 percent of Americans want to reform public education. Almost the same number support public education. We need to listen to the American people. They want to improve our public schools. There are problems in public schools and we need to address these problems, but let us fix public education, not experiment with our Nation's future.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about some innovative things that schools have done. For example, in some of the districts I am familiar with, we have always heard of night school students, but they are using their buildings, because why build new buildings if they are not utilizing them? So they are using them for night students. Those students who may be more motivated by going out and working during the day and coming in and getting their high school diploma during the night in an abbreviated program, schools are doing that. So even in those opportunities, we are seeing overcrowding on the high school level. So there are other activities, and the gentleman mentioned other activities. We have great ROTC programs, great band programs; obviously athletics, if one is coming from Texas or North Carolina, I guess. But every way we can reach that child to keep them in school, to encourage them to be in school, again, no matter what we do, any of the extracurricular programs and use it as a motivator. I just happened to like to play football when I was in high school and that was a motivator. In fact, those coaches could motivate me much better than any English teacher could. But that worked. The same way with ROTC now is so successful, and it is a growing program in our districts, at least in Texas and I think nationwide. So that is why the infrastructure funding is so important. What my colleague from New Jersey mentioned, we have title I funding that is available for computers. We can go buy the computers now. But to wire the school, we cannot use title I funding. That is why an infrastructure, to bring that school up to grade level for wiring for the public schools for the computers, but also for the health and safety of those children, so not only does the roof not fall in, but the fire safety is there, and I know that is the D.C. problem. The judge said those schools are just not safe for those children. Frankly, if I had a child in the D.C. schools, I would be glad that the judge said that and said, OK, we need to fix them before we put those children in those schools. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter from the Aldine Independent School District, Houston, TX, for the Record: Aldine Independent School District, Houston, TX, September 30, 1997. Hon. Gene Green, Rayburn Bldg., Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Green: Enrollment is rising in the nation's public schools and federal incentives are needed to fund critical construction to meet growth. The $100 million provision for school facility infrastructure in the Senate's appropriations bill is a starting point. The House bill, however, does not include school infrastructure funding. I urge you to contact House conferees who will meet to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills and ask them to accept the $100 million for school infrastructure included in the Senate version. For your convenience, I have included a list of the House conferees from the subcommittee. For urban school districts such as Aldine, which has experienced 2-3 percent annual growth over the last three years, federal funding is vital. Your assistance in retaining the $100 million appropriations for the Rebuild America's Schools initiative is greatly appreciated by our children, taxpayers, and educators. Sincerely, M.B. Donaldson, Superintendent of Schools.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. When we talk about, again, buildings, thank goodness we are going to have those kids in high school, because the other problem we talk about a lot of times is the dropout. We do not want to see those children start in the elementary grades and go on to middle school and then drop out before they get to high school. We want to see them complete high school, because that is just another step on the road to their success, but also on the road to our country's success, because our country, as great as it is, is not any good at all if we have an uneducated work force or uneducated people that are defending our Nation. And we can defend our country not just by carrying a gun or manning a missile; we defend our country every day by being as aggressive in our business. That is what our school system is all about. That is why the United States is the greatest country in the world for lots of reasons. One, the free enterprise system; but also, because we educate everyone. We are a diverse country and we want everyone to be educated. We want to give them the opportunity, and granted, some people are harder to educate. In fact, I had some high school teachers who said I was probably one of those harder to educate students. But I am glad that they persevered because they were preparing me to serve in Congress. And that is why we need to encourage and do better today for those teachers that are out there today doing that, just like the gentleman said. They are hard- working. They not only work their 7 hours a day, but they spend hours and hours in the evening grading those tests, grading those papers that they cannot do during the day. Also, conferences. I cannot remember, when I was in school, a teacher calling my parents. One, I did not want them to. But today, because most of the schools have it built into the responsibilities, teachers have to contact those parents, not just sending a note home but calling those parents to make sure they bring them in as part of the education system, because we just cannot educate children with teachers and students; it is all of us involved in it, parents, the community, and that is where we see the success in the school districts. Let me say that the problem in some facilities, some districts have success with their local taxpayers who approve the bond elections. We had some great successes in the districts I am honored to represent. We have a school, Cheneby High School, a small school district on the outskirts of Houston that has a new high school, Cheneby High School that has state-of-the-art computers. There is a hookup in every classroom. We do not have that in most of our districts, because some districts, the voters voted against bonds, so they are having to do creative financing to do it. Galena Park High School in a neighboring district is building a new high school, doing the same thing, because their voters approved it. But we need to help on a national basis because it is a national concern, because we need to make sure that those young people are prepared to take our places here on the floor.