Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, September 23, 2004, I was unable to be present for the final three votes of the day, rollcall votes No. 470, No. 471, and No. 472, because I returned to my Congressional District in order to assist my constituents with the potential impact of Tropical Storm Ivan's imminent landfall on the Southeast Texas Coast. On rollcall vote No. 470, to Order the Previous Question, I would have voted ``no,'' so that we could fix the underlying bill (H.R. 1308) to pay for the tax cuts and avoid increasing the deficit. In addition, the bill should fix the combat pay problem for military families that denies the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. On rollcall vote No. 471, on H. Res. 794, the rule waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308), I would have voted ``no,'' due to the increase in the deficit and the failure of the bill to address military families. On rollcall vote No. 472, on the conference report accompanying H.R. 1308, I would have voted ``yea,'' because the legislation does provide significant tax relief to middle class families and provides important tax incentives to businesses. However, these tax cuts should have been paid for, and military families should have been included.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and fellow members. I rise to support this resolution and commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Negro College Fund. As the oldest comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization, the United Negro College Fund has enhanced educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young men and women. In today's times tuition increases are the rule, not the exception, many minority students rely on organizations like this to navigate financial aid applications and to get the financial help they need to pay for school. The students who attend college through this organization often go on to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, and elected officials. United Negro College Fund students don't just become graduates, they become productive citizens and I congratulate all the students back home in Houston and across America who have been helped by this program. $2.3 billion has been invested in our future by this organization and I wish the United Negro College Fund continued success.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4077 today because I feel it is important for Congress to keep pace with those who use new technology to defraud consumers. As a co-sponsor with our colleague Heather Wilson of the Anti-SPAM bill, I'd like to also thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees for taking action on this legislation. We live in an age when technological breakthroughs bring us better, more efficient lives. However, these breakthroughs also entice people to take advantage of others for personal and financial gain. Congress needs to address these types of issues quickly because as we all know, the fast pace of technological growth will always bring with it new issues for Congress. During our experience with the Anti-SPAM bill, we all came to an understanding that technology itself is not the problem--it is the way some entities use technology that is harmful to consumers. This legislation balances consumer protections against Spyware with the need to allow industry to use software technology to provide useful products and services to consumers. I'm glad to stand with colleagues from both sides of the isle on this issue and rise to support this legislation. This bill will protect us from spy ware and get our law enforcement agencies involved in helping make the internet a more secure place to conduct business, communicate and learn.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because of the tax relief that it provides our middle class and the incentives it provides for additional research and development. Without hesitation, I support marriage penalty relief, the expansion of the 10-percent bracket and the extension of the AMT exemption. I also am pleased that the conference approved extensions of the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit. If I had my druthers, those tax credits would be permanent, but I will certainly support their extension. While I wholeheartedly support the middle-class tax relief in this particular bill, I cannot cast my vote without also speaking out against the lopsided tax cuts that this Congress has enacted. What convenient timing for this Congress to finally consider tax cuts for the wage earners right before the people are heading to the polls. Any other time of the year, however, this Congress seems to be focused on giving tax relief not to the middle class, but to the corporations that seem to be doing just fine at avoiding their tax liabilities. In fact, of the 275 largest companies that were profitable in the last 3 years, 82 of them paid no income tax during at least 1 of those years. That's no income tax on a total of $102 billion in profits. Not only did these companies avoid their tax liability, they siphoned even more resources from the Treasury--in the form of $12.6 billion in tax rebates. In total, these companies benefited from $175 billion in tax breaks over the past 3 years. Make no mistake about it, I'm glad we're giving the middle class the tax relief they need. I just wish they didn't have to wait in line while this Congress gave away the farm to the corporations.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I include my statement for the Record supporting the Watt amendment, and also supporting the original Protect the Pledge Act. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Watt amendment to H.R. 2028, the Protect the Pledge Act. This amendment is plain and simple; it would restore H.R. 2028 to its original language. I strongly support the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, in the last Congress I introduced H.J. Res. 103, an amendment to the Constitution that would affirm that the Pledge of Allegiance in no way violates the First Amendment. Unfortunately, Congress did not pass the resolution before it adjourned for the 107th Congress. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2028, I had hoped that it would protect the Pledge of Allegiance from unnecessary court battles without infringing on the rights of the people. However, with H.R. 2028 in its current form Congress has lost its balance between our constitutional rights and the law. The Pledge of Allegiance is an important symbol of the privileges and rights that our founding fathers fought so desperately to preserve. Although the major controversy surrounding the pledge rests on the words ``under God,'' H.R. 2028 blatantly ignores the words ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Every citizen has the right to due process under the law. By stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to the Pledge, we take away the basic right for everyone to have their case heard before the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the Federal district and appellate courts, but we do not have the power to decide which cases the Supreme Court can and cannot hear. The Watt amendment restores the Protect the Pledge Act to its original language. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our constitutional rights.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment and thank my colleagues for bringing it up. When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the Department of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems and to improve our ability to monitor. Since these rules were established, matricula consular ID cards have widely been accepted as a legitimate form of identification at a bank. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in other nations. These cards do not confer citizenship. They do not confer the right to a driver's license. All they do is say that Gene Green lives at a certain address, whether it be in Guadalajara, Mexico, or Frankfurt, Germany. My concern about this, without adopting this amendment, we are going to limit our own consular office's ability to do this for our citizens. I would expect retaliation from countries who we are doing this to their consulates to do the same thing to us. I have some concern about it because we have thousands of our residents who retire to Mexico, retire to lots of places who may need this assistance from our own consulates. But in all honesty, we do need to have some type of identification for our local law enforcement to be able to deal with people that they can show. Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, I rise today to support this amendment and I thank my colleagues for bringing it to this floor with bipartisan support. When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the U.S. Department of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems and to improve our ability to monitor financial transactions. Since these rules were established, Matricula Consular I.D. cards have been widely accepted as a legitimate form of identification to open a bank account. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in other nations. If we do not amend this bill to keep the Matricula Consular identification card as a legal form of identification, it will be the only identification document explicitly banned as proof of identity in opening a bank account. What bothers me most about the provision that we are trying to amend is it specifically targets a form of I.D. issued by the Mexican government. We could see retaliation against cards issued by our government. Businesses in my home state of Texas conduct billions of dollars of business with Mexican companies. The need for Mexican nationals to come to the United States and establish legitimate bank accounts is imperative to the success of our state's economy. The Department of the Treasury has examined this issue thoroughly and decided that a flexible standard which accommodates local conditions is the best and most secure for our nation. Matricula Consular I.D. cards allow authorities to pursue those who are breaking our banking laws and then prosecute them diligently. Without these I.D. cards, it will be more difficult for Treasury. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. I would like to start with a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the electoral college. I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these unlucky chances are hitting us today. The stakes of American presidential elections are tremendous for all of us but our Presidential candidates focus their activities on small numbers of ``swing voters'' in roughly a dozen states. This is an injustice. All Americans are created equal and all Americans vote should count the same. So today, I am reintroducing legislation I authored in 2001 with my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Baird. Our legislation, the Every Vote Counts Amendment would begin a Constitutional Amendment process to create national elections that are simple, democratic and counts every American equally. The heart of the amendment is Section Three, which reads: ``The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.'' The people, not small groups of partisans, should be responsible for filling the highest office in America. The Electoral College violates the sacred democratic principle of ``one man, one vote.'' It should be abolished and replaced by something simple and fair. Why should the candidate who wins the most votes not win the election? Opponents of this Amendment cannot justify why a less popular candidate should win, without saying, ``that's the way we have always done it.'' In 1913, Congress and the states trusted the people to elect their senators when we approved the Seventeenth Amendment. Today, we should trust the people to elect the President of the United States through a direct vote. Every vote should carry the same weight in the election, no matter where in the nation it was cast. Texas Democrats, New York Republicans, California Republicans, and South Carolina Democrats would again have a say in the election of their President. America is one nation, and our President should not wage a handful of separate campaigns in evenly balanced states, but one campaign, in all states, for all the people. My constituents are unjustly ignored because neither candidate ever comes to Texas except to look for money, not votes. That is an insult to all Texans, Democratic and Republican. Americans got a shocking look at our needlessly complex national election process in 2000, when we watched outcomes of recounts of hundreds of votes in a handful of counties determine an election in which over 100 million people voted. We began to worry whether members of the Electoral College would be faithful to their states. We began to fear an election decided by just 435 individuals in the House of Representatives, which we have seen can be manipulated by redistricting. There is nothing more simple and fair than: ``the persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.'' In America, every vote should count and they should count equally. Therefore, we should adopt the Every Vote Counts Amendment and allow the states to begin the process of ratification.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Brown, my good friend and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee. Last week the Bush administration announced a 17-percent increase in premiums for Medicare Part B benefits. This is the highest increase in Medicare's long history. In fact, since the Bush administration came to town, Medicare premiums have increased twice as much as they did during all 8 years of the Clinton administration combined. On every account, it is wrong for our seniors on fixed incomes to face double digit increases in their Medicare premiums. But to make matters worse, our seniors are left footing the bill as a result of this administration's failed health care policies. If this administration wants to increase access to health care, it should ensure that Medicare--as a safety net program--is truly affordable to America's senior citizens. Instead, this administration is charging our seniors an extra $5.5 billion next year, all the while diverting $12 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund to help HMOs lure Medicare beneficiaries away from traditional Medicare. Instead of siphoning money from the Medicare Trust Fund to the HMOs' pockets, the administration should focus on the fiscal realities facing the Medicare program. By stopping the Medicare Part B premium increase, the Brown amendment will force them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to do right by America's seniors and support this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman and Members, I'd like to thank my colleague, Mr. Obey for offering this amendment. The Department of Labor has implemented new overtime regulations that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim will bring 1.3 million new people into overtime eligibility. However, other independent studies such as the one by The Economic Policy Institute report that at least 6 million will lose their overtime rights under this rule. Also, this analysis projects that only 400,000 low-income workers will now qualify for overtime pay. Not the 1.3 million claimed by the Administration. Yesterday, leadership refused to debate this amendment because several of their colleagues would have voted for this amendment. This only indicates that both Republicans and Democrats know that passing this amendment is the right thing to do. My home state of Texas has an unemployment rate higher than the national average and that's true for the City of Houston as well. Many of my constituents rely on what they make in overtime pay to keep the lights on in their homes. I think it's time we start thinking about our most important resource in this country: the American Worker, and vote ``yes'' to this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the memory of those who lost their lives 3 years ago this September 11th. Our country has still not recovered from this terrible tragedy, and people in the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon, those aboard United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and the brave men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty that day will forever be remembered for their bravery and sacrifice. It was 3 years ago that these terrible attacks occurred and awakened this Nation to the hatred these terrorists have for the principles of freedom and for our great country. Three years and two wars later, however, there is still much to be done to protect the people of this Nation and ensure something like the 9/11 attacks never takes place again. It is still too easy for terrorists to cross our borders; our homeland security professional lack vital information they need to protect us; and our Nation's first responders still lack the training and equipment they need to prepare for, or respond to, a terrorist attack. My hometown and the district I represent in Houston, is one of the most at-risk areas in the Nation. Of all the possible targets in our area, including Houston's large metropolitan population, NASA's Johnson Space Center, and the Texas Medical Center, the Port of Houston and Houston's petrochemical complex remain one of the most susceptible due primarily to lack of Federal funding for our protection. Based on Coast Guard estimates, port owners and operators are still short by over $400 million to implement port security plan upgrades, such as surveillance cameras. The U.S. is home to more than 66,000 chemical production and storage facilities spread out amount our cities, towns, and rural areas. According to the EPA, 7,000 of these facilities pose a risk to 10,000 or more people, however, the Department of Homeland Security has visited fewer than 100 facilities. These facilities and surrounding communities deserve Federal support if we must increase their protection for national security. These are necessary and vital steps we must take to protect our homeland, yet so many of these have gone unfunded while we have spent over $200 billion in Iraq despite no clear connection between the former Iraqi government and the terrorists that target America. Three years after we were forced into this war on terror, we must assess what we have done and what we must do to protect our Nation. We must go after the terrorists where they live and train, with all countries that share our values and our desire to root out terrorism. Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are remembering those that lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks, we must make every effort to protect the people of this country so that we never have to mourn another attack on U.S. soil.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the rising health care costs facing our seniors. This last week the administration announced that American seniors will face the largest premium increase in Medicare's history. Instead of roughly $67, now it is going to go up to $78 a month for their Medicare Part B premiums. The difference amounts to a huge increase, far exceeding inflation or any potential cost-of-living adjustment that our seniors receive under Social Security. This adds to the Government Accounting Office just last week asking for part of the salary back from the person who withheld information from this Congress when we passed the Medicare reform bill last year. We should not force our seniors to bear the brunt of the increased cost of Medicare. The administration's actions will force them to come up with an extra $132 a year just to cover the increased premium. For the average senior receiving Social Security, this represents 10 percent of their monthly budget. Unfortunately, if precedent is any indicator, seniors will continue to see double-digit Medicare premium increases under a second Bush administration. It is downright shameful to saddle our seniors with the cost of the administration's failed health policies. America's seniors deserve better.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would restore the much-needed funding for the Community Access Program, and, believe me, I appreciate what the chairman and the ranking member on the subcommittee and the full committee did with the resources that we have. I know there are more demand resources, but to actually zero out the Community Access Program I think is something that this House and this Congress should not do. With more than 44 million Americans currently living without health insurance, there is no doubt that too many Americans are going without necessary preventative health care. This lack of access to care comes at an extremely high cost both in human and budgetary terms. Nearly 40 percent of uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test or treatment. And 20 percent indicate that they have needed but have not received care for a serious health problem in the past year. Without access to primary health care, the uninsured end up in our emergency rooms where treatment is extremely expensive and taxpayers are footing the bill; either that or the shareholders in our for-profit corporations. This is where the Community Access Program, or the CAP program, comes in. This successful program was created 4 years ago to help local agencies coordinate preventative and primary health care for uninsured individuals in their communities. CAP allows coordinating efforts between the for-profit hospitals, the nonprofit, and the public health providers and literally everyone in the community to serve the people more efficiently. The program facilitates a community-based approach to preventative health care and allows the community to tailor its program specifically to the needs of its uninsured population. The CAP program has been instrumental in providing health care to the uninsured in my hometown in Houston. Gateway to Care, the community access collaborative in Harris County, Texas, has used CAP funding to expand primary health care services by steering uninsured individuals to the county's existing services, which the uninsured rarely take advantage of. From CAP funds, Gateway has developed a nurse triage service that individuals can utilize 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So instead of someone showing up in the emergency room, they actually have a phone number to call, and maybe it is just a sinus infection and they can direct them to the closest clinic in their area instead of showing up at whether it is our for-profit or our public hospitals or our nonprofits. Instead of calling 911 and having an ambulance come to get them, these individuals can speak with a qualified nurse who can help them determine the type of care they require. Gateway has utilized this funding to increase the enrollment in the State's CHIP program and to develop a streamlined eligibility system among the four major safety net providers in our county. Gateway's achievements have helped thousands of Houstonians access necessary health care services. And yet Gateway is not alone in its successful use of this CAP funding. The program has funded more than 150 health care collaboratives in 42 States; so it is clear that CAP has touched most of us in this Chamber. CAP collaboratives are serving the uninsured across America from Jacksonville, Florida, to Portland, Maine, from Anchorage, Alaska, to Los Angeles, California. They serve small areas like Concord, North Carolina, and urban areas like Houston. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record a list of the American cities that have benefited from this successful program. Birmingham, AL, Montgomery, AL, Sylacauga, AL, Anchorage, AK, Sitka, AK, Augusta, AR, Helena, AR, Ratcliff, AR, Bisbee, AZ, Navajo, AZ, Prescott, AZ, Tuscon, AZ, Bakersfield, CA, El Centro, CA, Eureka, CA, Lompoc, CA, Los Angeles, CA, Martinez, CA, Orange, CA, Salinas, CA, San Francisco, CA, San Leandro, CA, San Mateo, CA, Stockton, CA, Vallejo, CA, Colorado Springs, CO, Denver, CO, Greeley, CO, Derby, CO, New Haven, CT, Middletown, CT, Dover, DE, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Jacksonville, FL, Kissimmee, FL, Miami, FL, Orlando, FL, St. Augustine, FL, Tallahassee, FL, Tampa, FL, Atlanta, GA, Augusta, GA, Macon, GA, Des Moines, IA, Couer D'Alene, ID, Carlinville, IL, Chicago, IL, Rockford, IL, Springfield, IL. Indianapolis, IN, South Bend, IN, Tribune, KS, Wichita, KS, Ashland, KY, Louisville, KY, Lexington, KY, Franklin, LA, New Orleans, LA, Boston, MA, Cambridge, MA, Springfield, MA, Yarmouthport, MA, Lavale, MD, Rockville, MD, Portland, ME, Detroit, MI, Grand Blanc, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Lansing, MI, Marquette, MI, Muskegon, MI, Saginaw, MI, Ypsilanti, MI, Alexandria, MN, Mankato, MN, Minneapolis, MN, St. Cloud, MN, Kansas City, MO, Kirksville, MO, Jackson, MS, Clarksdale, MS, Billings, MT, Asheville, NC, Concord, NC, Durham, NC, Greensboro, NC, Pinehurst, NC, Raleigh, NC, Washington, NC, Bismarck, ND, Chadron, NE, Columbus, NE, Omaha, NE, Concord, NH, Albuquerque, NM, El Rito, NM, Santa Fe, NM, Amherst, NY. Binghamton, NY, Brooklyn, NY, New York, NY, Queens, NY, Tarrytown, NY, Warrensburg, NY, Cincinnati, OH, Columbus, OH, Dayton, OH, Tulsa, OK, Cave Junction, OR, Portland, OR, Blossburg, PA, Norristown, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Pittsburgh, PA, Scranton, PA, Cranston, RI, Columbia, SC, Greenville, SC, Orangeburg, SC, Chattanooga, TN, Memphis, TN, Talbott, TN, Nashville, TN, Austin, TX, Corpus Cristi, TX, Dallas, TX, El Paso, TX, Galveston, TX, Houston, TX, Uvalde, TX, Salt Lake City, UT, Arrington, VA, Danville, VA, Falls Church, VA, Richmond, VA, Winchester, VA, Olympia, WA, Seattle, WA, Spokane, WA, Wenatchee, WA, Milwaukee, WI, Huntington, WV, Martinsburg, WV, Charleston, WV, Hinton, WV. As much success as these communities have achieved with CAP funding, the bill unfortunately eliminates that program. Last year the program received $104 million appropriation; yet the administration transferred $20 million of that, or roughly 20 percent of the total funding, to a pediatric AIDS initiative. No one wants to deny the pediatric AIDS patients the care they need, but this situation demonstrates the problem we have with this bill. We are forced to rob one very worthy program to pay for another necessary program, and in the end the health of our community suffers. My amendment would restore the $104 million for CAP, restoring funding for the program to the fiscal year 2004 enacted levels. Because of the host of worthy health care programs in this bill, we do not have an offset, and I would like to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to talk about the amendment, but I want my colleagues to understand the tremendous strides this program has made in providing primary health care to those 44 million Americans currently living without insurance. The program is worthy of our support, and it is my hope that funding will be restored in conference. Again, to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I appreciate their allowing me the time, and I thank them for the funds for the community health centers, but we still need the dollars to coordinate these community health centers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my ranking member, also the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill up today. I rise to highlight an important program that this bill fails to fund. The Congress has supported and funded the Community Access Program since its inception in 2000. The CAP program, the Community Access Program, has provided communities with much-needed grant funding to provide both preventive and primary care to their uninsured populations. In communities like mine in Houston, and literally hundreds across the country, we utilize this funding to put together the necessary consortium or groups to help solve our health care access problems. For-profit, nonprofit and public health agencies coordinate services using CAP funds. Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has reached 44 million and is growing. Now is not the time to cut off access to this important primary and preventive health care service in our communities. Without this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to seek health care from our hospital emergency rooms, where costs are skyrocketing and beds are scarce. This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I thank the committee for its work to increase funding for community health centers, which received $218 million over the President's request, and that is great. While the Community Health Center and Community Access Programs share similar missions, the Community Access Program really helps coordinate the services, whereas community healthcare centers are really important to a growing number in our community and even need more. I urge our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to restore funding for the CAP program.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill to provide for military construction in Fiscal Year 2005. At a time when our Armed Forces are attempting to streamline and transform their operations, this bill provides crucial funding to upgrade, maintain and construct the facilities necessary for this process. One project of particular interest to me, and which I requested funds for, is a Houston Armed Forces Reserve Center, however, this project was not earmarked in the House bill. The proposed facility will be designed for both Texas Army National Guard units and Marine Corps Reserve units. Several existing National Guard facilities will either be vacated by this relocation, or remaining units will be closer to their required space authorizations. The vacated facilities will reduce the average age of existing facilities and lessen maintenance backlogs. This facility will have a direct impact on soldier readiness by providing proper authorized space to conduct indoor training, reduce driving distances for a majority of the soldiers residing in Houston, and provide modern facilities support for soldiers. Additionally, this facility is in line with the military's goal of creating joint-use bases. While the House bill did not provide an earmark for funding this project, I am hopeful that our appropriators will see fit to include this request in the conference report.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3313. While I believe the institution of marriage should consist of one man and one woman, and I voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, I cannot support this bill. The Defense of Marriage Act has to my knowledge not been challenged in the Federal court, and it seems like we are putting the cart before the horse. We should allow our system of checks and balances to work like our Founding Fathers designed it. Whatever Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii does regarding their marriage license does not change how Texas law does marriages. In Texas we already have a law that states the institution of marriage is one man, one woman. We also have a law that states that Texas does not have to recognize marriages that are performed outside the State of Texas. The Defense of Marriage Act supports our State law. Marriage is a State issue and not a Federal issue. We do not seek marriage licenses in the Federal courthouses. What this bill is about is continued efforts of this administration and Republicans in Congress to divide our country when we really need unity. Just today we heard that while our troops are fighting for our country, they are short $12 billion in funding, even with all the supplementals we voted for. Maybe this administration, the Republicans, need to spend more time explaining why our troops waited months for body armor and armor for their Humvees and we are still $12 billion short. Let us spend time protecting our country and not worry about ``my'' 34 years of marriage. And once again, this administration has the wrong priorities.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on June 12 our office hosted our 10th annual Citizenship Day event. This is a one-stop application processing opportunity for residents who wish to become U.S. citizens. With the help of local volunteers, elected officials and community- based organizations, we were able to help over 150 residents take their first step to becoming a U.S. citizen. Over 10 years we have assisted thousands of people to become citizens of this great Nation. The Citizenship Day process involves completing United States Customs and Immigration Service forms, taking photographs, and having volunteer attorneys and U.S. Customs and Immigration Service representatives review the application and actually mailing it that day. Every year this event can bring tears to your eyes at the number of people who want to become citizens of our great country. While some of us tend to take for granted that we live in a great country, others wait in line all night long simply to submit an application to become a U.S. citizen. Although an event like this takes many months of coordinating, the rewards are remarkable. Not only does it provide a service to our community, but it increases awareness among legal residents about how important it is to become a citizen. Mr. Speaker, I would like to list in the Record all the volunteers and groups that helped us on this event, as follows: Houston Community College--Northeast Campus, Harris County Constable Victor Trevino, U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, United States Postal Service, JP Morgan Chase, Alma Latina Taqueria, League of United Latin American Citizens LULAC, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, Hispanic Organization of Postal Employees HOPE, Telemundo, Univision, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Attorneys at Law, Hipolito Acosta-Houston District Director of USCIS, Rose Aguilar, Mary Almendarez, Norma Ambriz, Carmen Bermudez, Graciela Caballero, Rob Caballero, John Cedillo, Mary Closner, Tolanda Crombie, Anselmo Davila, Zonia Davila, Elias De La Garza, Cesar De Paz, Hector DeLeon, Olivia Del Bosque, Raul Diaz, Debbie Dimas, Jaime Elizondo, Armando Entenza, Linda Escamilla, Fernando Espadin, Pedro Espadin, Silvia Espadin, Charles Flores, Tim Floyd, Carmen Galle, Jaime Garcia, Juan Garcia, Rose Garcia, Martina Garcia, Sophie Ha, Krystal Hernandez, Ernest Hill, Amalia Huerta, Natasha Jabbar, Andres Lara, Dorothy Ledezma, Teresa Longoria, John Martinez, Leticia Martinez, Frances Munoz, Valerie Noyoda, Anna Nunez, Isela Obregon, Rafael Palafox, Clauia Pulido, Isabel Ramirez, Sylvia Ramirez-Martinez, Mary Ramos, Christina Ramos Avila, Francisco Rodriguez III, Margaret Rodriguez, Catalina Rosas, Patrese Ruffin-Bush, David Ruiz, Rosalinda Salazar, Noe Sanchez, Cathy Shuler, Teri Smith, Christie Nga, Glida Treadway, Theresa Turnini, Frank Urteaga, Moses Villapando, Juana Wilson.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the International Court of Justice's July 9, 2004, advisory opinion condemning Israel's security fence. Israel's security fence is an important tool necessitated by continued Palestinian terrorism. Israel has the same obligation to protect its citizens as any other nation, including the United States. The ruling by the ICJ is not only the latest in the United Nations long line of anti-Israel actions, but also sets several dangerous precedents in international law that hinder and impede United States antiterrorism efforts. Having been to Israel on several occasions, I can personally attest to Israel's need for this security fence. Many measures have been taken to make its presence less intrusive on the Palestinian people, while still providing necessary protection for Israeli citizens. Further proof of this is the June 30, 2004, ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that a contentious section of the barrier being built by Israel in the West Bank violates the rights of thousands of Palestinian residents by separating them from their farmland. This ruling led to a shift in the path of an 18-mile section to meet the court's demands. This fence is a necessary means of protection for a people that have suffered numerous terrorist attacks, not on their government or military, but on innocent civilians. Israel has not claimed that this fence is a permanent barrier; it is a temporary solution to protect its citizens who have been plagued by violence. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the International Court of Justice's decision, and I fully support Israel's right to protect its citizens.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 615. This resolution expresses this House's support for full membership for Israel in Western European and Other Groups at the United Nations. Full membership for Israel is long overdue. Without full membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key U.N. bodies, and the Arab states have barred its membership in the group it geographically belongs in, the Asian Group. On May 30, 2000, Israel accepted an invitation to become a temporary member of Western European and Others, WEOG, regional group. This historic step helped end at least some of the United Nations' discriminatory actions against Israel; however, without full membership, Israel is excluded from much of the U.N's general business that occurs outside of the General Assembly and Israel is not eligible to sit on the Security Council. As a sovereign, democratic state--the only democratic state in the Middle East--Israel's full participation in the United Nations is an essential right. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House's full support of this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.- Australia Free Trade Agreement and this bill we are considering today to implement it. With few exceptions, I have historically opposed our free trade agreements because most of them have been negotiated with developing countries with insufficient labor and environmental standards. Now, following my colleague from Texas, obviously, we have different views on this free trade agreement. One of the things I am proud of is that not only do most of these earlier trade agreements have inadequate labor and environmental regulations and lower the standard of living for people residing in those countries, which inhibits the ability for U.S. companies to compete, when I opposed previous trade agreements it has always been on the basis that we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage against countries that have significantly lower standards of living. However, this agreement with Australia is different. It puts the U.S. on a level playing field with a country that has comparable labor and environmental standards and a minimum wage that exceeds our own. I wish that were true with CAFTA and NAFTA and a whole bunch of other of our agreements. This is fair trade, and this is the kind of agreement I can support. This agreement will immediately eliminate 99 percent of all tariffs currently imposed on U.S. exporters. With 93 percent of all exports to Australia coming from the U.S. manufacturing sector, this agreement is estimated to boost our manufacturing exports to the tune of $2 billion. Without a doubt, there are parts of this agreement that I feel are less perfect. The agreement contains language allowing Australian pharmaceutical patent holders to prevent the export of their products to the U.S. market. In considering, though, that 90 percent of Australian drugs are currently prohibited from being exported by their law, I do not believe this agreement, in a practical sense, would hurt our current reimportation effort. However, I do make clear my opposition to the use of this provision as a precedent for future agreements. I would also like to note labor's concerns with the agreement. While not out-and-out opposing the agreement, the AFL-CIO has stated that the agreement is ineffective in protecting core worker rights in either the U.S. or Australia. As a former union printer, I take pride in working to strengthen labor rights in our own country; and I certainly agree that improvements can be made in our own country. Yet, on the whole, both the U.S. and Australia have exemplary labor laws that, given our constitutional democracies, are not likely to reach levels that impose significant threats to the health and safety of our workers. On balance, it is a fair agreement between two countries that value democracy, worker rights, and fair competition. It is not free trade. It is fair trade.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on July 9, 2004, I was unable to be present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall 348, to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 349, on the motion to adjourn, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 350, on ordering the previous question, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 351, on agreeing to House Resolution 711, I would have voted yea; On rollcall 352, on tabling the motion to reconsider, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 353, on the motion to adjourn, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 354, on the motion to recommit with instructions, I would have voted nay; On rollcall 355, on agreeing to the Gordon amendment, I would have voted yea; On rollcall 356, on agreeing to the Jackson-Lee amendment, I would have voted yea; On rollcall 357, on agreeing to the Larson amendment, I would have voted yea; On rollcall 358, on the motion to recommit with instructions, I would have voted yea.