Gene Green

Mr. GREEN

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

Mr. GREEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again the amendment was not germane because we cannot legislate on this appropriations bill. Again, the purpose of this amendment was to give us an opportunity to talk about Houston's situation. I appreciate both the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, for their assistance in working on this issue. This did not just came up yesterday. We have a chronology of letters starting in 1995, but also personal visits for 5 years with HUD officials to talk about upgrading the office and needs of Houston. HUD, plain and simple, has been unresponsive to the needs of the citizens of Houston. Because of this, those of us who share Houston, Mr. Chairman, will be back and looking to see that the citizens of Houston get the service they deserve.

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

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I realize we are on title III, but since title II passed so fast, I did not get the chance to offer my amendment. For 5 years I have struggled with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help the citizens of my district in Houston. Houston is a city with a growing population, and with this growth there is a definite need to address the issues of more affordable housing and access to HUD programs. Over the past 5 years I have tried to work with HUD and have received various verbal commitments and assurances that Houston, the fourth largest city in the Nation, would receive the necessary HUD staff and programs to be an effective agency for the citizens of Houston. I have written numerous letters to HUD about this request. In fact, in a 1994 HUD memo from the Secretary's office, it suggested that the Houston field office be upgraded and receive all the available programs. Again, Houston is the fourth largest city in the country, and out of the 10 largest metropolitan areas, Houston is the only one without a fully serviceable HUD office. With this amendment, I was going to send a message, realizing that on an appropriations bill we cannot legislate, but I was going to send a message to HUD that the citizens of Houston need an office of community planning and development and also an Office of Inspector General, making all HUD programs available in our Nation's fourth largest city. The office of community planning and development provides technical assistance and the monitoring of State and local entities receiving Federal funds to assist with elderly and disabled housing loans, CDBG and funds for Houston's enhanced enterprise community. When I go back to my district and I talk to seniors and families and local elected officials from Houston and from Pasadena, they all have some concerns about housing for the elderly. An office of community planning and development would aid the citizens in my district and the district of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] to gain access and administer funds to renovate, locate, and build elderly housing. This office also oversees the funding and provides technical assistance to Houston's enhanced enterprise community. HUD came up with a great idea to provide funds to local governments to help their economically disadvantaged areas. These areas are called Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Communities. Through tax breaks to businesses and access to Federal funds, HUD hoped to revitalize disadvantaged areas. Houston has an enhanced enterprise community. We have access to almost $200 million to help revitalize parts of Houston. It would be a shame not to have a local HUD office that could work with us. Another program office that we do not have and is very needed is the office of inspector general. An office of inspector general has the mission to locate fraud, waste, and abuse in HUD programs. The most recent and blatant misuse of taxpayers' dollars is the dealer portion of the title I program. The title I program is designed to give people an opportunity to fix and improve their homes. Unfortunately, there are some people who took advantage of this program for their own gains. The dealer portion of title I allowed a contractor to solicit homeowners into applying for a loan. Then the contractor would receive the money directly, do partial improvements, and keep the rest of the money while the homeowner had to foot the bill. KTKR-TV in Houston investigated this abuse and they reported a whopping $50 million was stolen by corrupt dealers in Texas alone. They confronted contractors and even went to the HUD office here in Washington looking for answers. HUD's response was to eliminate the dealer portion of title I, which helped us, but again we could have caught this long before. If we had had an inspector general in Houston instead of being in the nearest office which is Fort Worth. Fort Worth, which is 200 miles from us, and with their budget crunch we could not get people to travel from Fort Worth to Houston to do the investigation. Again, this happened in the fourth largest city in the Nation.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. My colleague's amendment gives us terrible options. I support veterans and additional funding for Gulf war syndrome. We should be engaged in expanding AmeriCorps, not in its elimination. Almost 4 years ago, when Congress created the AmeriCorps program, we expected great things from national service. The Congress expected AmeriCorps to help communities meet their public service needs with real results. We expected AmeriCorps to unite individuals from different backgrounds in the common effort to improve our communities. We expected AmeriCorps to encourage its members to explore and exercise their responsibilities to their communities, their families, and themselves. Today, almost 3 years after the first 20,000 AmeriCorps members hit the field in over 1,000 communities across the country, the Corporation for National Service and its AmeriCorps program has met every one of these expectations. And in many cases, it's exceeded them. In my hometown of Houston, TX, 120 AmeriCorps members in the SERVE HOUSTON program serve 1,500 school children daily in partnership with the Houston Independent School District and the YMCA of Greater Houston by providing in-school tutors and after-school programs in 24 title I schools. Our daily Club Learn and Serve after-school program provides safe and structured activities for 1,000 children who would otherwise leave school for an empty home or the streets. The program provides reading and homework assistance, cultural activities, and service learning projects where school children learn to serve their own communities. SERVE HOUSTON receives cash matching support for its AmeriCorps funding from leading corporations including: Shell Oil Co. Foundation, Exxon, Enron Corp., Duke Energy, Arthur Anderson, and El Paso Energy. In addition, it receives strong support from private foundations and individuals. SERVE HOUSTON is truly a public-private partnership. SERVE HOUSTON generates non-AmeriCorps volunteers to serve the community through its outreach to churches and synagogues, college campuses, and public schools. Nationally, each AmeriCorps member leverages about 12 volunteers and generates 246 volunteer hours. But AmeriCorps' service in my community does not stop there. The Collaboration to Help Homeless Veterans is involved in several aggressive outreach programs. The AmeriCorps members not only go to shelters and get veterans signed up for services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they also go out with mobile units and service those homeless individuals that are under bridges and in the woods. These AmeriCorps members assist our homeless veterans to become self- sufficient by providing educational and vocational support; they help our veterans access medical and social services, and they build working relationships with other service providers. The decision on whether or not to continue national service will tell us a lot about ourselves. We should put partisan politics aside. Let's work together to continue to provide young people an opportunity to help themselves, as they help our communities and learn service as a way of life. AmeriCorps has kept its promise to the American people. The Congress should, too. (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am a little outnumbered on our side. We will have to get reinforcements. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand up and say that I disagree with the one-minutes from the other side because you do not need to be a Harvard Law School or business graduate to know what is happening in the Republican tax bill, but let me talk about how important the educational tax cuts are in both the President's plan and also in the Democratic alternative. There are a lot of people in this country who are middle-class, who make $30,000 a year, and yet their kids are not eligible for Pell Grants. But the President's plan and also the Democratic plan, with the educational tax cuts proposal, would help those people make sure that the next generation has the opportunity to go to college. We are not talking about wealthy folks. We are talking about average working folks who go to work every day, maybe a school teacher who makes $30,000 a year, with two children at home having to go to college. That is what we are talking about, and that is why the Republican plan is so wrong. Hopefully, the conference committee will correct this.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, this morning we have heard a lot of 1-minutes on what the tax bill may do. Well, let me tell my colleagues what the American people believe. Recent public opinion surveys indicate that Americans have figured out that the Republican bill is mostly handouts for the wealthy. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released on June 26 revealed that Americans prefer the Democratic tax alternative to the GOP by a 2 to 1 margin, 60 to 31 percent. USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released on July 1: 52 percent of Americans think the Republican tax plan favors the rich. Even the GOP pollsters are finding the same result. According to Monday's Washington Times, a poll conducted by three Republican pollsters financed by the Republican Party found nearly half of those surveys, 48 percent, said they believe the proposed Republican tax plans are biased toward the wealthy. In yesterday's Houston Chronicle there was a great editorial cartoon that was also in the Atlanta Constitution. It had a multiple choice. Own a yacht? Own a private jet with eight seats or more? Have a wine cellar bigger than a football field? If the answer is yes, congratulations; that person qualifies for a middle-class tax cut under the Republican plan.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate our colleague and our friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], and his wife Lea Ann, and their son John Thomas on the birth of their second son, Garrison Alexander. Garrison Alexander was born at 10:32 on Sunday, July 6 at Hillcrest Baptist Hospital in Waco, TX. He weighed 6 pounds and 1 ounce. Garrison Alexander is named in honor of his two grandmothers, Shirley Garrison Edwards and Patricia Alexander Wood. His 1\1/2\-year-old brother that all of us know as J.T. is named in honor of his two grandfathers, Rev. John A. Wood and Thomas Edwards. I have had the pleasure of working with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] on many issues that affect Texas and our Nation, and he represents his constituents with the highest degree of integrity. He is a devoted family man, and he will be a terrific father to Garrison, just like he has been to J.T. Both Edwards boys are very lucky to have such a loving family with Chet and Lea Ann. I am also privileged to have the opportunity to play this small part with the Edwards family. We all wish heartfelt congratulations to the proud parents and hope the rest of Congress joins me in welcoming Garrison Alexander into this world. I want to thank Chet and Lea Ann as we celebrate bringing another Texan in to serve our Nation.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here on the floor and listened this morning, and time and time again we have had folks come up and say, we are going to help the struggling families with the first tax cut in 16 years. The gentleman said, and I know we have had Members come up on the floor, for example, the $500 child tax credit in Kentucky, over 50 percent, over 50 percent of the children will not be eligible for it. In my State of Texas, 54 percent of the children will not be able to enjoy that child care credit. And I know that is correct. The other thing that I wanted to ask about is, a lot of us support a capital gains tax cut. But in the Democratic alternative, we have a solution in there. The small investor, the person who is not making a living investing but is really the person who is investing in it and we set a cap of $600,000 as a lifetime on capital gains tax cuts. So if somebody is making a living investing, if they are playing the stock market and that is their living, they are not getting a benefit from the person maybe working in a factory in Michigan or working in on a ship channel in Houston. We are encouraging people who are the workers to also invest and they get that capital gains tax cut. That is what I hear. When I talk to people who say we want a capital gains tax cut and I say, what if you make your living as a stockbroker; no, they ought to pay regular income. Well, that is what the Democratic alternative is doing. It is making sure that that individual who is investing in part of this great country and this great free enterprise system will be able to take a tax cut. That is why the Democratic alternative is so important.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the inclusion of provisions authorizing private companies to determine eligibility and to verify income for the Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs. These items have nothing to do with the Federal budget, except to potentially make it worse in the years ahead, and it represents a significant policy change with broad-ranging implications. These public policy changes deserve extensive debate based on the actual merits and risks--not on inflated claims and misinformation. We need to spend real time considering the implications of allowing private, for-profit companies to determine who is or is not eligible for services under Medicaid and food stamps. There are no assurances in these provisions that the contractors will be required to comply with the most basic requirements and procedures which public agencies routinely follow, especially those relating to accountability of funds. Recent privatization arrangements indicate that private contractors do not believe they have a comply with procedures taken for granted in the public sector. For example, the private industry in Philadelphia had to be sued several years ago in order to get information about its federally funded training and job placement activities. Similarly, the private one-stop centers in Massachusetts have failed to provide any placement information necessary to measure their effectiveness. The privatization provisions make no assurances of any actual savings or efficiencies. Experience suggests that the opposite could occur under privatization. In the case of California, Lockheed Martin Information Management Services promised to build an automated child- support enforcement system by 1995. The total price promised was $99 million. Today, its $304 million, with major cost overruns. A consulting firm recently told State officials that it found 1,400 errors caused by Lockheed Martin, and a recent legislative report said that there is no guarantee that the system will ever work statewide. The most amazing feature of these provisions is that while responsibility for administration of the Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs can be privatized, the amendment has insured that legal liability for constitutional torts remains with the state. It does this by including the following: ``For purposed of any Federal law, such determination shall be considered to be made by the State and by a State agency.'' The legal effect of this sentence is two-fold. First, it permits a private company to make a binding legal determination as to who is eligible for benefits and who is not. Historically, only government officials have granted or denied public welfare benefits to needy citizens. The second effect is that for the purpose of Federal laws protecting civil rights, the determinations made by private contractors shall be considered to be made by the State. In short, the State will remain liable for constitutional torts even if they are committed by private contractors. This policy will greatly benefit the private contractors who will have an asset rich codefendant. It is only the States--who will retain liability while surrendering control--that will suffer. If these provisions are enacted, it will be appropriate to call if the Unfunded Mandate Act of 1997. The States will be left holding the bag for the mistakes made by the private entities. There are no compelling reasons to go forward with wholesale privatization of the Medicaid and food stamp eligibility systems. In fact, we have not heard how access to services will be improved. And the public policy concerns, in particular public accountability, client privacy and the role of profit-making in serving the needy are overwhelming. If we move forward with this idea, we will be neglecting our duty to our constituents to ensure the proper administration of the Medicaid and Food Stamps Programs. Substantial modifications to these programs deserve the full consideration of the Congress and should move through the regular legislative process. Privatization has nothing to do with balancing the budget and could place the agreement in jeopardy. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has indicated its opposition to these provisions in a letter to the Rules Committee. If you liked $100 hammers and $600 toilet seats, then you will like wholesale Medicaid and food stamp privatization. However, if you believe in public accountability of public funds, and providing care for our most vulnerable, then you will help me oppose these provisions.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the disapproval resolution and I reluctantly do so. In previous Congresses, I voted for the extension of MFN for China with the belief that more engagement on economic and diplomatic fronts would yield gradual but positive changes within China. But as our trade deficit has worsened, I know that has not been the case. I know things have changed in China. In fact, there are elections that are going on on the local level, so there has been progress. But the concern I have is the tariff disparity between the United States and the People's Republic of China, so I was seriously considering voting in favor of the disapproval resolution. But I am going to vote against it today, because I do not think it would improve our trade deficit if we pass this resolution. I do not think it would give us more access to the China market. I do not think it would improve the treatment of Christians in China, although I know we have heard today both people who said they are persecuted and people who have said, including Reverend Billy Graham, that it would be bad not to have most-favored-nation. I do not think it would prevent China from selling weapons to Iran if we disapprove most-favored-nation. I think the best choice we have is to continue to work with China and respect their culture and respect their country, and to say we are two great nations and we need to work together. That is why China's desire for WTO membership requires more open markets. I hope we will see that in China. I hope we will see a lessening of the tariffs on our products going to China because then this will come up again next year. That is why I have cosponsored our Democratic leader's bill asking for China's accession to WTO be subject to a vote in Congress.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Alexander Hieken who passed away Sunday, May 25, 1997 in the Methodist Hospital in Houston, TX at the age of 88. Al grew up in St. Louis, MO and graduated from the University of Missouri with a bachelor's degree in journalism in 1929. He worked in El Paso, TX for the Herald Post. He was the International Representative for the American Newspaper Guild. Al served in the United States Navy during World War II. In 1948, he was transferred to Houston, Texas as a Guild representative. In addition, he served as director of the Concentrated Employment Program of Houston, a training and placement division of President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. At the time of death, Al was serving in his fourth term as silver- haired legislator from the Harris County Commissioner District II. He was a member of the Houston Press, AARP, National Council of Senior Citizens, AFSCME Local 1550 Retiree Chapter, and the Gray Panthers. He was also a member of the Harris County Area on Aging Advisory Planning Committee. Al is survived by his wife, Elizabeth Kimmell Hieken, a daughter, Ellen Hinkle, two grandchildren, Chris Hinkle of Wimberly, Texas and Cherrie Hinkle of Houston, and two great-grandchildren, Carli and Austin Hinkle. Also surviving him are his sister, Mary Lavazzi of St. Louis, Missouri, and his brother, George Hieken of New Hampshire. Alexander Hieken will be remembered as a leader in his community whose ideas reached far and wide. His genuine enthusiasm for the American labor movement prompted people of all ages to become interested in better working conditions for all. Because I experienced Alexander's vitality and wisdom firsthand, I have no doubt that this tireless role model made Houston, Texas a richer place to live. As friends and family reflect on his lifetime of contribution, it is only fitting that we also pay tribute to this great man and good friend.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern is we are losing the budget agreement in the effort with the details. Again, there are a lot of healthy senior citizens, and again, they are smart enough to know that they will not go get those tests if they feel good, if they know they can keep that money themselves. But again, the average cost for a Medicare recipient in our country today, the average cost of everyone, is $1,600 a year. If you give the healthiest an opportunity to have a medical savings account that is paid for by the Government, paid for by the Government, that is deductible in their premium, then they are going to take it. My concern is over a period of years, we heard last year the denials that Medicare would wither on the vine. This may be, now it may be baby steps to get Medicare to wither on the vine, because let us take money out of Medicare and put it in an experimental program for $2 billion. Next year it might be something else they want to do, or something else. So they are taking money out. Again, we know Medicare has to be reformed. We know we want the trust fund, I want the trust fund to be solvent after 2010, because frankly, I am going to be 65 sometime after that time. I want Medicare to be there not only for my dad, but for me and also for my children. But we do not do it by taking money out of the system and experimenting with it, and maybe calling into question the whole senior citizen health care program that has been with us since 1965 and has been one of the greatest things our Government has ever done for seniors. It shows, because that is also the ever-increasing population. People are living longer, and it is also because both they are healthier and also they have Medicare to take care of people. I want to thank the gentleman for taking his time for this special order, not just on the medical savings account, but also on the whole tax bill, because there are things in there that I would like to vote for, but things like MSA's make it to the point where I just cannot vote for it. If they are in there, with the lack of the SLMBY help for the senior citizens, then I would hope the President would also make that determination and veto it if it actually gets to his desk with those in there.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for this special order to talk about the tax cut bill. My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], and I serve on the Committee on Commerce, and last week we spent many hours in markup and voting on the Medicare portion and Medicaid and children's health care portion of the budget agreement. My concern today is the medical savings account and the cost that it will have. A little brief history maybe. Last year under the Kassebaum- Kennedy bill, where we had portability and dealt with MSA, as a pilot program for medical savings accounts, MSA's were allowed for half a million people. MSA's, medical savings accounts, are allowed today even without that. If I wanted to go out right now and set up a high deductible health care plan, I could go buy it. What the bill last year did is say OK, we are going to take 500,000 people and we are going to give them a tax deductibility, like an IRA, for their medical savings account. Now, the majority Republicans in the House want to do this for Medicare. But again, let me go back and do some comparisons between medical savings accounts and standard insurance. Medical savings accounts, again, one could do it without any authorization from Congress, but the tax deductibility is the thing that makes it attractive, whereas last year the average wage-earner in our districts across the country that may pay $200 or $300 a month for their insurance, for their children's insurance, for example, they do not receive any deductibility for that. So if one has $5,000 to put away, we are giving a deduction. But if one has to pay for one's insurance, $200 or $300 or $400 at a time, one does not get that deduction. So all I think we ought to have is fairness. It was wrong last year, but it is even more wrong with Medicare, because under Medicare it is actually costing us $2 billion of tax money to do a pilot program for half a million senior citizens who are on Medicare. Again, it is not like those seniors have $5,000 put away. It is the Government that is going to give them their money for their medical savings accounts, so that is why it is going to cost us for a pilot program $2 billion. It is not those seniors' money, it is everybody's money to do it. Medical savings accounts were sold to us as a way that we could control our own health care. And maybe it works, but the only reason it will work is that, if we give a tax deductibility for people who are non- Medicare, and on Medicare, we are actually paying them to do that. The way it works, the 500,000 pilot program under MSA's for Medicare is that Federal tax dollars will pay for $5,000, and they will buy that down, for whatever they do to go to the doctor. What they have left in a certain year, then they get to take that. There is very little control, as we heard in committee last week, that if I was 66 years old and wanted to do a medical savings account, I would apply and be accepted into the pilot program, I guess. And if I only used $1,000, then I could apply for the remainder of that. If I wanted to buy a boat with it, if I wanted to do whatever I wanted to with it, there are no restrictions in this bill. The problem most of us have is that the average Medicare recipient today costs, on the average, both the people who need a lot of help from Medicare and the people who are healthy Medicare recipients, is about $1,600. So it is a bad deal for the taxpayers to pay $5,000 to somebody who may only be on the average using $1,600 during the year. That $2 billion is part of this balanced budget agreement, that is what bothers me. Now, there are lots of things I may disagree with, and some of them I may support in the proposal we are going to consider. But the MSA's is a tax cost, and it is tax dollars that are being used to experiment that we can experiment and do options for a lot cheaper than $2 billion. We ran with amendments in committee, and I think my colleague and I both voted for a smaller pilot program, one that costs a lot less. We lost on basically a party line vote. That is the frustration. Mr. Speaker, we all want choice in our health care, whether one is a Medicare recipient or whether one is just someone else out here buying on the open market for health care. We want choice. But the choice should be our choice, but the choice also should be our assets or our costs that one is dealing with. Now, if we want to give a tax deductibility for people on health care, then I hope to, and maybe that ought to be one of the tax reform measures. Let us give a tax cut to people who are having to buy insurance. The gentleman and I know that there are great examples of employers all over the country because of the cost of health care for their employers, maybe at one time they gave both dependent care and their employees; but because of the high cost of insurance, they have cut back and they say well, we will pay for their employee's coverage, but their employee has to pay for this dependent care. Why do we not give a tax deduction in this bill for that dependent care? We would see more children insured, more dependents insured, spouses who are at home who may not be eligible for health care through an employer; but that is not considered. We are going to spend $2 billion of tax dollars for an experiment on Medicare on MSA's, medical savings accounts, and it just does not make budget sense. That is the frustration. It is not Gene Green or Democrats in Congress saying that it is costing $2 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these medical savings accounts would cost $2 billion over the 5-year budget period. Only in Washington, and we heard this last week in our committee, only in Washington could a $2 billion cost say that is cost containment. To me, we ought to be able to save money on that and not spend $2 billion. MSA's, or medical savings accounts, in a sense are a voucher for seniors' health care, and it is more expensive for the Government because not every senior uses that $5,000. Again, my seniors in Houston, just like my colleague's in New Jersey, are smart enough to know to say: Well, wait a minute, I am healthy, I do not need to go to the doctor every day or every month, I will apply to that, and if I do not use that $5,000, that is money in my pocket. So that is tax money, though. I want them to have the money in their pocket but not when we are having to take away from other programs to have to do it. A good example of taking away: One part of the budget agreement that I thought was good that we again failed on in the committee process was to have a program on the Medigap, or the supplemental insurance for senior citizens. So often, Medicare costs them $43, $45 a month, Medicare part B. That will go up under the program, although it will go up a small amount every year. The high cost to seniors today, though, is what their supplemental insurance is costing them. So there are a lot of seniors who are poor seniors who do not have the money to pay $200 a month for their supplemental policy. That is the problem in part of the budget agreement, was to save those seniors who are poor that would be paid their supplemental insurance, would be paid through Medicaid. But we lost again on that amendment last week that would say well, wait a minute. The budget agreement said that these costs are going to go up. Let us take care of poor seniors who cannot afford the supplemental plan. What do we have? We lost on that. So we have a lot of seniors who are going to, may see a substantial increase in their costs and cannot afford it. That is why a lot of us on both sides of the aisle, I know I do as a Democrat, want to see a balanced budget. But what is coming out of our committees, whether it be our Committee on Commerce, whether it be out of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Agriculture or Committee on Education and the Workforce, is something that I cannot support because the devil is in the details. We support a balanced budget. But when we see the details that are coming out of some of our committees, that is when we are going to say wait a minute, that is not the agreement that was made 3 weeks ago or a month ago, that is not the criteria, that is not the framework that we talked about. When we are not taking care of seniors, who cannot afford the supplements, when we are experimenting with $2 billion of tax dollars for medical savings accounts, that is $2 billion. I hear all the time from our conservative talk show folks that say, it is not your money to spend. This $2 billion is not my money, it is not our money, it is tax dollars that we should not be experimenting with, tax dollars for medical savings accounts. It is not a good program. And I would hope that, although we will not have a vote on the floor on that amendment, I would hope the conference committee and the Senate would look at this and say that $2 billion can be used for other purposes, or maybe send it back to the folks for more tax reduction, or maybe help balance the budget sooner than 2002, which also brings up a concern. I worry about the tax agreement or the budget agreement, $85 billion in tax cuts that we have. We have lost our goal, to balance the budget. And I worry that we are going down that same road that happened in the early 1980's where the last major tax cut was 1981, and yet we saw the budget deficit balloon during the 1980's because of a lack of budget discipline. I hope that we are not making that mistake here in this Congress. So I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for having this special order but also for allowing me to participate in it today.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, [Mr. Abercrombie], for allowing me the time to speak today in support of H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act. The Sea Grant College Program, established in 1966, provides wise stewardship over our marine and coastal resources. It is a partnership between our universities and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The mission of the Sea Grant Program is to promote and sponsor research, education, and outreach aimed at the wise utilization and conservation of our Nation's coastal and marine resources in order to develop and maintain a sustainable economy and a healthy environment. I represent a district in Houston, TX. It is the Port of Houston; and our Sea Grant College is Texas A&M at Galveston, with programs spread all along the gulf coast of Texas and where a person can learn about both the ocean and coast and environment and innovative marine technologies. The 29th District, like I said, is in the Port of Houston, about 50 miles away from the Texas A&M campus, but it is vital to all the ports along the Texas coast and also to our Nation. Texas A&M Sea Grant College provides business owners, fishermen, and community groups information about how to achieve the most economically while responsibly conserving the marine environment. Without the Sea Grant Program, the citizens of Texas and our Nation cannot stay current and competitive with the rest of the world. By reauthorizing the Sea Grant Colleges through the year 2000, we have ensured that we will help train future citizens who will not only look to protect our oceans and coastal areas, but they also will be trained to properly use our marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 437. This bill makes significant improvements in the Sea Grant Program by streamlining the review process, reducing administrative costs, and clarifying the Federal and university roles in the program. This program is a 30-year success story. It has proven its value and worth to our country. Again, I rise in support of the bill and again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for putting together this effort.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, the tax bill crafted by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has some good items in it. Every American would like to have a tax cut, whether it be an income or estate or a capital gains tax. But I am beginning to fear that we are losing sight of the ball, that we originally came here in the early 1990's to balance the budget. When President Clinton was elected in 1992 we had a deficit of $290 billion. This year that deficit is expected to be $57 billion. What are we seeing now? We are seeing an unfair tax bill that may be passed by this House that will make the tax cuts so large that we will not have that balanced budget, maybe not even by 2002. Let us pass a reasonable tax cut that treats parents and college students fairly, working parents fairly, and even investors. But let us not lose sight of the ball to balance that budget as soon as we can.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic that I am on the opposite side of my colleague from Houston, and I only have 1 minute. I will try and say it quickly. I rise as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 54. I am proud to be a cosponsor this session and last session. I think it is so important that we recognize, though, that freedom of speech has limits on it. And as much as I defend the right of someone to disagree with what I say on the floor or anyone says on the floor, we also have some limits. That flag that we have is a symbol of that freedom. Now, granted, it is carried into battle. I would hope that our service personnel would carry the Constitution with them, too. But the flag is that symbol. That is why I think it is important that we pass this constitutional amendment today and send it on to the States for their ratification. The burning of our national symbol is something that huge majority finds that we should change. This amendment is trying to protect those intangible qualities that the Bill of Rights represents, and it also represents our flag. I ask that we pass this with the two-thirds vote and hopefully the Senate will also.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have heard this last colloquy between my colleagues from Texas. Let me give you, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. This is not as easy as they would say because the White House has given a response. It is not a response that maybe the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, wants or my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm. But it is a response that is reasoned and it will work and it is also a response that I hope the Texas legislature is dealing with right now. The concern some of us have on this side of the aisle is that we do not particularly want a blanket waiver, which is what is being requested. We want to have the competition and also what the private business can do without determining the eligibility. Let me tell my colleagues what this blanket waiver request would do. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I was not going to take the time of the Congress tonight except my colleagues brought a local issue of Texas to the floor of this House. That is why I think we should be concerned, because this battle is being fought in the Texas legislature right now. And if we believe in local control, then let us let that happen. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I join in the comments of my colleague from Indiana in my concern about the makeup of the commission. I am glad there is an agreement to fix it. I do have some concern, however. In fact, I was one of the original requesters of the GAO report when I served on the committee that the gentleman from California chairs that detailed the increases in higher education last year. I have some concern with the reduction and where the money is coming from, the $849,000, in the Federal family education loan administrative account. I am concerned it will undercut the Department of Education's effort on debt collection efforts. The FFEL administration currently funds a major portion of the Stafford Perkins Data Systems contract, which processes default claims from lenders and guaranty agencies and supports the defaulted loan collection program. So that is why I am so concerned. I know typically in our process, if we provide additional oversight, for every $1 we provide we get back $5 in debt collection. But if we are taking away $849,000, I worry, are we losing a corresponding amount of $5 million in not having the $849,000? So I have some concern about the outcomes of that and I hope we can judiciously look for that money that does not hurt our efforts to collect on debt service that is owed on the student loan program.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, last night the majority Republicans made a wise decision in including full funding for the WIC programs. They threatened originally to cut the President's $76 million request for additional fiscal year 1997 funds in half, which would have forced 180,000 women, infants, and children to be kicked off of the nutrition program. I join a lot of my colleagues today in breathing a sigh of relief now, although we hear that WIC has been replaced by education cuts. Under their new proposals there are several red flags. Under this Republican proposal, 86,000 children will be cut from Head Start, 360,000 fewer students would be eligible for Pell grants for college or job training, and nearly 500,000 fewer children would have teachers to help them with basic math and reading skills. Congress has enacted a safeguard for our country's pregnant women and infants and children by not removing them from the WIC rolls. Now let us make sure they can also educate our children. Let us not only feed our children, but let us educate them.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district both yesterday and this morning. On rollcall votes 92, 93, 94, 95, and 96, if I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 92, ``aye'' on 93, ``aye'' on 94, ``aye'' on 95, and ``aye'' on 96. I ask that my statement appear in the Record immediately following the recorded votes.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today and follow my colleague. I am not proud of this Congress either because we are a do- nothing Congress. But before we condemn the Republican leadership for their inactivity, I would like to remind my colleagues that it could be worse. We could have a repeat performance of 2 years ago, when the Republicans were busy trying to pass legislation that cut taxes at the expense of Medicare. While the Republican leadership missed yesterday's deadline for a budget resolution, we are still hearing that my colleagues want to pass tax cuts again. In fact, we have Senate Republicans demanding cuts in Medicare and House Republicans wanting to eliminate estate taxes. A great plan: We will cut your taxes after you die, but we are going to take your Medicare away from you while are you alive. We cannot cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time. Following my colleague from Ohio, beam me up, Mr. Speaker. Does this make sense?

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, the first 100 days are supposed to set the standard for the session ahead. I hope this is not the case with this Congress, which has been plagued with delays on everything, not the least of which is the budget. The Republican leadership has pushed back deadlines for voting for budget proposals, and now we hear it will be the summertime before we can expect to discuss the budget. While the President submitted a budget more than 2 months ago, we still have yet to see an alternative budget from the Republicans. While we have fielded criticism on the President's budget, we cannot fight fire with fire because we have nothing to add to the numbers to compare the President's budget to what we have, which is nothing, so we have to move. Similarly, we continue to waste time by not addressing the health care crisis for America's children. At the end of March a Families USA study told us that 2 million people were uninsured for at least 1 month in 1995 and 1996; 10 million children were uninsured for the entire year of 1995. We need to address this issue and other issues that affect our country. Senators Kennedy and Hatch have worked together in a bipartisan manner on a children's health care plan. Maybe we need to follow their lead and do something for children's health care in this House. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.