Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that next Tuesday we will honor our veterans and the sacrifices that they made for our great country. On Veterans' Day, we will each be back in our districts attending memorial events and letting our constituents know of our admiration for our veterans and our support for American troops currently in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we will not be telling our constituents, however, is that Congress has a history of breaking its promises to these men and women who have fought bravely to defend the values and ideals that this country was founded upon. When the men and women of our Armed Forces signed up for military duty, the local military recruiting officer told them that, for their service, they would get health care at VA hospitals. What they did not tell them was that they may have to wait up to 6 months for an appointment. We civilians find it tough enough to get a doctor's appointment through our HMOs. Yet 60,000 veterans have had to wait 6 months or more to get in at a VA hospital. Even worse, 14,000 of America's veterans who are entitled to expedited claims have waited more than 15 months to be seen. To me, there is nothing expedited about a 15-month wait. This is not the deal we struck with our veterans. They deserve better. We promised members of the military that we will take care of them if they sustained a service-connected disability. We also promised them retirement if they served their country for 20 years. Yet for those veterans who are both retired and disabled, we deduct their disability pay, dollar for dollar, from their retirement pay. What it amounts to is a disability tax on our veterans' pensions. Can my colleagues imagine a private sector corporation treating its employees this way? Can my colleagues imagine a retiree pension being reduced by the amount of workman's compensation an employee receives? We all know that would never fly in the private sector, but this is how the U.S. Government treats its veterans who have risked their lives and safety defending our country. Currently, 560,000 disabled military retirees across the Nation are affected by this disability tax; 65,200 of them are from Texas and 264 reside in the district I represent. These military retirees in my own district lose an average of $5,310 each in much-needed veterans benefits each year. They fought bravely for our country and earned every penny of these benefits, and we should not be wasting time on half-a-loaf compromises or deals that make veterans wait years for these benefits. No, our action on concurrent receipt should be driven by the commitment that we made to our veterans who have, without a doubt, upheld their end of the bargain. The sad fact is, this country is not treating our future veterans, the men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, any better. I have no doubt they all appreciate the opportunity to come home for 2 weeks for much deserved rest and relaxation, but I find it unconscionable that we give them a free ride back to a port of entry in the U.S. and then leave them there to pay their own way home. Do we really think an enlisted Army private has the financial resources to pay for a short-notice flight from BWI, Baltimore Airport, to his home or her home? I can guarantee my colleagues we did not ask our men and women in uniform to pay their own way for any leg of their trip to Iraq. We should not be forcing them to pay for any of their trip back home. This past weekend, the harsh realties of war hit us in Houston particularly hard as we learned that one of our own was aboard the Chinook helicopter bringing 16 of our servicemembers home. Sergeant Keelan Moss graduated only 5 years ago from Eisenhower High School in the Aldine Independent School District. A young man of only 23 years old, he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and will be forever remembered as an American hero. The loss of his life is a grim reminder of the constant dangers faced by our men and women in uniform. And while we may often think of our military as a symbol of American strength and pride, we must also remember that it is comprised of individual Americans who are consistently putting their lives on the line, day in and day out, to defend our great Nation. For their selfless patriotism, we owe it to our military members, both past and present, to keep the promises we made to them. As we send them in harm's way to defend us, that is the least we can do.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 313, the Animal Drug User Fee Act. This legislation is modeled after the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which ensures that consumers have timely access to lifesaving drugs. ADUFA would establish the same expedited process to ensure that pets and livestock also have access to groundbreaking pharmaceuticals. Despite a current requirement that limits the review time of a new animal drug application to 180 days, the review process takes an average of 1.5 years to complete, with some applications taking several years. Eighty-eight percent of original new animal drug applications are overdue, the longest day being 717 days. Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't stand for that kind of delay for people, and I don't think that Man's Best Friend, or the livestock that feeds all Americans, should have to either. I support this legislation, and am happy to see it on our agenda. However, I would point out that this House has not yet acted on legislation which would authorize the FDA to require pharmaceuticals manufacturers to test their products on children. For too long, doctors have been guessing about how best to treat our children. Kids are being used as guinea pigs because pharmaceutical companies haven't done the testing necessary to ensure that their products are safe and effective for kids. Many of us have been fighting for several years to ``codify the rule,'' and I am anxious to work on legislation that would do that. As important as animals are, nothing is more important than the health and safety of our children. It is high time for us to put the interests of our children first. I urge the leadership of the House of Representatives to take up legislation which would ensure that the FDA has the authority it needs to require prescription drug manufacturers to test their products for children.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my colleague and the chairman of our subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It is with reluctance I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by my colleague and longtime and respected friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). We have served together now for 30 years, and every once in a while we do find ourselves on opposite sides. Since I represent Houston, and I will deny under oath if necessary that we caused Dallas' pollution problems, but be that as it may, I understand the gentlewoman's passion to improve the air quality for her constituents. That is impressive and she is doing great work to raise the public profile of a difficult issue. But I find myself in a difficult situation myself today. A bipartisan group of my colleagues from north Texas and east Texas are blaming my area of Houston for increasing smog levels in their area. First, let me say that the Houston area is doing everything in our power to reach compliance with the Clean Air Act. Our deadline is 2007. We have a tremendous amount of manufacturing facilities and jobs in our area. And reengineering these facilities without causing a regional recession is a challenge, but we are making progress. The EPA has given areas with imported air emissions extra time to meet the deadlines, but the courts have ruled that they do not have that authority. A provision is in the draft conference report, which is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) talks about that allows the EPA the authority to extend the deadline for two years with areas with imported emissions. Now, in the Houston area we do have some problem in imported emissions from if they have fires in Mexico, we receive it. But Houston would not come under this. But if the EPA decides that Houston's air quality significantly impacts Beaumont, for example, to the east and Dallas' air quality, then maybe they should also have the same deadline in Houston in 2007 instead of 2005. That is basically all this provision in the conference committee would do. We are not reopening the Clean Air Act. It is just allowing Dallas or Beaumont to ask for that extension. I understand there are similar situations in areas all over the country. And I also understand the concern of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), that the deadline be moved back, because often we relax if it is not pressing. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe Dallas and Beaumont should not use an extension as an excuse to avoid local control and delay cleaner air for their citizens. But I do believe the EPA should be able to grant them an extension and give them as much time as my own area with the Clean Air Act.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, I regret I was called away on urgent business and missed the vote on rollcall 576, 577, 578 and 579. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: On rollcall 567, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall 577, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall 578, I would have voted ``aye''. On rollcall 579, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to remind my colleagues of our most pressing domestic problem, the plight of our unemployed workers. I really should not have to offer this reminder to my colleagues. The recent newspaper headlines and the heart-wrenching stories from our unemployed constituents should be reminder enough. But it looks like this Chamber's leadership unfortunately needs to be reminded that the true victims of this recession are not corporations, but the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs over the last 3 years. It is no secret that our manufacturing industry has been the hardest hit. Of the 3.2 million jobs lost over the past 3 years, 2.7 million of them were good-paying manufacturing jobs that provide a livable wage and sustain this country's middle class. These job losses were not the result of increased American productivity. They are the result of flawed American tax and trade policies that actually provide incentives for American companies to ship their jobs overseas. That is right, to ship these jobs overseas. In the name of free trade, we have forced our companies to compete against businesses in countries with no or little environmental standards and labor standards and that pay their workers low wages. And how do our companies react? They are forced to scour their books to find any and every cost to cut. They cannot disregard environmental regulations because that is the law. They cannot deny their American workers fair labor protections because that is the law. But what they can do is reduce labor costs by moving production to an overseas land without these worker or environmental protections. Despite all that this country has sacrificed for free trade, the World Trade Organization, the WTO, has now ruled that this country's foreign sales corporation and extraterritorial income laws are illegal tax subsidies. Considering that these tax provisions were enacted specifically to help our manufacturing sector, this ruling comes at an extremely difficult time for the manufacturing and other export industries. With a staggering trade deficit that seems only to rise, the last thing our export industry needs is to be slapped with $4 billion in sanctions from the WTO. So the answer is clear. Congress must fix the problem to comply with international trade law. If only it were so easy. Our friends on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have recognized the burden that a solution would place on our manufacturers who receive billions of dollars annually from these laws. They also recognize the tremendous impact that the manufacturing sector has on our country, that manufacturing has long been the engine of economic growth in this country. Not only does the manufacturing industry drive our gross domestic product, our GDP; it drives our job growth. In fact, every million dollars in manufacturing sales creates 14 jobs, eight in manufacturing and six in our service sector. In contrast, every million dollars sold in the service sector only creates 3.5 jobs. So when faced with tight budgets and record unemployment, it does not take a genius to see that we get the most bang for our buck by shoring up our manufacturing sector. The gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York have put forth a bill that would fix this tax provision while mitigating the negative effects on our manufacturing industry. Most important, however, the aptly titled Jobs Protection Act would provide the necessary incentives to keep these well-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States. With this bill they hit the nail on the head. The AFL-CIO knows it, the National Association of Manufacturers knows it, and 149 of my colleagues know that this is the right direction to go. Unfortunately, it is becoming all too clear that the fix is on. Just this morning, the Committee on Ways and Means chairman rammed a competing bill through his committee. Sure this bill fixes our problem with the WTO, but it only exacerbates the problems experienced by our manufacturing sector. They will tell you that the Thomas bill cuts the tax rate for manufacturing and production income, and it does; but it also includes a package of international tax provisions that only encourages companies to send more of their production jobs overseas. Sure we want to increase our exports, but I want those exports to be American products, not American jobs. The Thomas bill's focus on multinational corporations at the expense of our manufacturing workers is no way to restore strength to our ailing manufacturing sector. And it is no way to alleviate this country's unemployment problems, either. When we consider these issues, let us remember that our unemployed workers are the true victims of our economic downturn. Let us keep in mind that they are desperately depending on us to help them. Let us not let them down.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3232, legislation to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs. The federal child nutrition programs continue to be a great success story. The National School Lunch program, enacted in 1946 as a measure of national security, currently serves more than 28 million children each day. The need for this program has never been greater. With childhood obesity growing at an alarming rate--especially among low income and minority populations--it has never been more critical that our children have access to high quality, nutritious food choices at school. The legislation we are considering today is only a temporary reauthorization, since this program expires and we have not completed the heavy lifting necessary for a full five year authorization. I urge my colleagues who are working on this issue to make a number of significant improvements to these various childhood tuition programs, including: Increasing the income limit for those children who qualify for a free lunch from 130% of the federal poverty limit to 185% of the federal poverty limit, thereby eliminating the reduced price category of this program; Providing the USDA commodities for the School Breakfast Program; Lowering the area eligibility guideline to 40% for the Child Care, at-risk after school and Summer Foodservice programs; and Increasing the USDA reimbursement rates for child nutrition, consistent with a USDA analysis of the costs to produce a lunch. In most areas of the country, the cost to produce a school lunch is now greater than the reimbursement rate for a free lunch of $2.14. A child who is hungry cannot be expected to learn. A few years back, this Congress enacted legislation that promised no child will be left behind. If we are to keep that promise, we must ensure that all children have a healthy and nutritious lunch.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of unemployed Americans. The administration and our Republican leadership tell us that the economy is rebounding and that we are in an economic recovery, but to the hardworking Americans who are still looking for those jobs, the statistics do not amount to a hill of beans because they still cannot find work. To them, a jobless recovery is no recovery at all. America's unemployed have this administration to thank for an economic recovery that has produced few jobs and has little impact on their lives. Sure, the administration will tell us that job creation is its number one priority. In fact, over the past year, the President has gone on a nationwide public relations tour touting his tax cut in front of backdrops that proclaimed ``Strengthening America's Economy'' and shout ``Jobs, Growth and Opportunity.'' The truth of the matter is, however, that any growth produced by the administration's economic policies has come at the expense of jobs or Congress' opportunity to create them. Let us take the administration's catch-all solution for any of our economic woes, tax cuts. The administration said that our economic recovery would be fueled by consumers who spent the extra money. Unfortunately, an income tax cut does not help unemployed workers without an income. They do not feel the economic recovery. To this argument, the administration is sure to say, wait a minute, we also gave businesses tax cuts to expand and create jobs. Well, our businesses did not take their advice. Instead, they invested in technology and innovation, and in doing so, they increased productivity and can now produce more products without producing more jobs. In fact, a recent Department of Labor study determined that our high unemployment levels are due not just to layoffs, but primarily to the lack of newhires in expanding businesses. So tax cuts for businesses have provided little relief for unemployed workers. Our trade policies have also been truly devastating for the American worker. By implementing fast-track trade negotiating authority and permanent normal trade relations for China, we have seen American jobs go out on a fast track out of this country. I would remind my colleagues that 3 years ago, we were promised that trade with China would lead to an increase in American jobs and exports. Well, certainly, we were not told that, 3 years later, our main export to China would actually be American jobs, about 1 million of them to be specific. Frankly, we have given American businesses little incentive to keep their jobs in this country. In ratifying a flurry of free trade agreements, we have made it increasingly difficult for American products to compete with their inexpensive foreign competitors. We have left many American businesses with few choices other than to move production, and jobs, offshore. Additionally, too many of our service sector businesses are outsourcing their jobs to cheaper foreign labor. Today, we already have 400,000 jobs outsourced to a country like India. That number is bad enough, but even worse is a recent study indicating that over 3 million of these jobs will likely be outsourced over the next 10 years. This country has already felt the tremendous pain of losing almost 3 million jobs. We need to take action now to encourage private sector business to keep these much-needed jobs at home. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in this country stands at 6.1 percent. The sad news, however, is that that number does not even take into account the thousands of Americans who have looked for work but have now given up. Labor force participation, the percentage of Americans who are either working or looking for work, is only 66 percent. It is at the lowest level since 1991. We need true job creation in this country, not the administration's idea of job creation through permanent tax cuts, tort reform and more free trade legislation. That kind of trickle-down job creation will not work any better than their trickle-down economics. Instead of their faulty economic policies, we need to stimulate the economy directly by aiding our cash-strapped States so that our law enforcement and teachers can keep their jobs. We should create jobs through public works programs that will employ our skilled workers while repairing America's crumbling roads and bridges. This is the kind of economic stimulus needed in our country. This is the kind of economic stimulus that creates jobs on the ground. The administration tells us to be patient, the economy is growing and the jobs will come. Unfortunately, however, recovery based on increased productivity only lessens the chance for job creation because to create jobs the economy must grow faster than productivity, and it does not seem likely that our sputtering economy will be meeting these expectations in the near future. So, here we are, with record-level trade deficits brought on by record-level tax cuts that will not do a thing for most of the American people hurting the most. And it is a shame, particularly because we had a choice. The administration could have pursued economic policies in the best interests of both our country and America's unemployed workers. Instead, they pursued economic policies in the best interest of their campaign and reelection efforts, and the unfortunate result is a jobless recovery, or if we ask our unemployed workers, no recovery at all.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total support of our troops, yet I cannot deny my lingering concerns about the supplemental spending measure and the administration's priorities. Last spring, this Congress provided $79 billion in supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And like most of my colleagues, I voted in favor of the bill and trusted that the administration's request was the result of a proper assessment of our military's needs. Imagine my shock to hear from my colleagues who visited Iraq that our soldiers and equipment are not equipped with lifesaving devices, such as top-of-the-line Kevlar inserts and armor for our Humvees. I cannot fathom why the Department of Defense did not put our soldiers' lives as a high enough priority to provide each of them with a Kevlar insert, a lifesaving device that costs only $517. I applaud our appropriator for making funding available in this second supplemental spending bill to provide our brave men and women this necessary protection. I also wish to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for raising the important issue of whether these funds should be administered as loans. With more than a $400 billion deficit and pressing needs here at home, we should be giving serious consideration to loaning these reconstruction funds to Iraq. Our economy is sputtering along, we are not getting the international financial support we need for Iraq, and our deficit is ballooning. These are all signs that we should be seriously questioning the wisdom of granting Iraq and Afghanistan $87 billion that could be used wisely here at home. Mr. Speaker, Texas children are being dropped from the CHIPS rolls and losing much-needed health insurance, yet we do not have the money to help our States protect them. Our bridges and roads are crumbling here, but we cannot pass a highway spending bill because we do not want to spend the money to put into it, yet we are supposed to have over $18 billion to simply grant Iraq for its reconstruction. I ask my colleagues, what about this country's reconstruction? Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our troops have my full and unwavering support. They have served our country with honor and bravery, and I am voting for them in supporting this bill. But I implore my colleagues and the administration to remember the urgent needs we have here at home and always put the needs of our country first.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, after hearing my good friend and seeing my colleagues on this side, it is a little awkward; but I know in the district I represent and the State I represent, I rise in opposition to the Capps motion to instruct energy conferees. The motion supports an amendment to the energy bill banning a study of our offshore energy resources. I call that our stick-your-head-in- the-sand energy policy. Our Nation needs to be aware of the energy options. The energy bill has research funding and incentives for the development of fuel cells, solar power, and other renewable resources. So why can we not know much natural gas is offshore of our country? When natural gas prices are above $5 per thousand cubic, we need to know what can be done about it. That is more than twice what our economy is used to. Clean-burning natural gas is used to heat homes, generate power, and is feedstock for chemical and plastic manufacturing, and as fertilizer. There is not enough LIHEAP money out there to help all Northern consumers this winter. Power bills are going up and farmers cannot afford fertilizer. Members all talk about the loss of our manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs that are in danger on the Gulf Coast are petrochemical manufacturing jobs that are in danger of moving offshore in search of cheaper natural gas, which means more manufacturing jobs in this country, period. To set the right policy for our offshore areas, we need to know what is there. That is all this study asks for. We are not talking about commercial exploration offshore; we are just talking about government research. Commercial exploration may come later, but at least we ought to know what is available. If we want less natural gas production and infrastructure, higher gas prices and more lost manufacturing jobs in this country, then let us continue to support this motion. If we agree that we are in a natural gas price crisis where we do not have enough of this clean burning fuel at affordable prices, I urge opposition to the motion to instruct.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which would allow states and localities to provide primary and preventive health care services to undocumented residents. An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Current Population Survey collected in March of 2002 by the Census Bureau indicates that 33.1 million immigrants live in the United States. Among those an estimate of 9 million are undocumented residents and about 900,000 are persons on long-term temporary visas, such as students and temporary workers. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) prohibits public hospitals from providing free or discounted preventive service to undocumented immigrants--even if they pay for such services with State or local funds. PRWORA does, however, allow public hospitals to provide emergency room services. This system has created a crisis in our nation's emergency rooms. Because undocumented residents cannot afford to see the doctor for routine physicals and preventive medicine, they arrive in the emergency room with costlier, often preventable, health problems. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that 29 percent of this population uses hospital and other emergency services in a given year, compared to the 11 percent use by the general U.S. population. The costs of this broken system are especially burdensome for our nation's public hospitals. According to the Congressional Research Service, undocumented residents cost Texas taxpayers, insurance companies, and patients more than $173,072,108 million in 2001. Since the federal government is wholly responsible for establishing immigration policy, and for policing the borders to keep out unauthorized aliens, shouldn't the federal government pay for immigration related health care costs? Unfortunately, federal Allotments for State Emergency Health Services to attend to unauthorized residents are not enough to help with the cost, so stats are forced to shoulder as much as 50 percent of the costs. Mr. Speaker, people should not enter any nation illegally. But I cannot understand a health care system that forces patients to let their health problems escalate into full fledged emergencies before it will provide them care. Wouldn't it make more economic sense to cover preventive services rather than let illnesses develop into painful and expensive complications? Most importantly, should the federal government be telling states and localities how they can and can't spend their own health care dollars? That is why I am introducing legislation which would allow--not require--state and local programs to provide the most cost effective preventive and primary health care to undocumented aliens. This legislation would not provide a new benefit for undocumented residents. However, it would make sure that our health care dollars are spent more wisely by preventing emergencies--not treating them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week the Federal Government ushered in a new fiscal year. And as is typical with the start of the new year, we look back at the last year and examine our problems and resolve to conduct ourselves in a more prudent manner. Unfortunately, last year was witness to a long list of physical indulgences, that have wreaked havoc on our economy to the tune of a $400 billion deficit. The administration will tell you that this deficit is temporary. We all know that these tax cuts raise the deficit, but they will tell you that the tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy enough to grow out of our deficit problems. Unfortunately, the numbers just do not add up. From 2001 to 2006 the average American will receive about $3,593 in tax cuts. That seems like a pretty good chunk of change until we realize that these tax cuts increased our individual share of the national debt by $13,000 in the same period. Any of my wife's former algebra students could tell you that it is not a good deal to get $3,600 and in return and have to pay $13,000. To put it another way, for each dollar we receive in tax cuts, our government is forced to borrow $3.60 to finance them and pay for other government operations. That is right. Other government operations, including the war on terrorism, including everything else we have, an economy that is not growing. We hear we are in recovery, but it is a jobless recovery. If you are unemployed, it is not a recovery. Nearly one quarter of our deficit is going to finance tax cuts, and I ask my colleagues, for what? Now, I know that not all deficits can be considered indulgent. Running a deficit can actually help the economy when it pays for job growth during an economic slump or even in times of expansion, deficits may be needed to fund education or research that will contribute to future economic growth. But these tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, were excessive, and they are contributing only to the ballooning deficit that is weighing our country down. It just does not make economic sense to try to stimulate the economy through tax cuts geared toward the wealthy who are just going to save that extra money. The money simply does not get into our economy. And to make matters worse, instead of stimulating our economy, these tax cuts are increasing the deficit that is going to start worrying investors. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that it is bad news when investors begin to worry. Interest rates go up, consumer spending slows, and then we are in worse shape than we found ourselves before. All the tax cuts have done is fatten the pockets of those who need it the least. Let us take the dividend tax cut as an example. This tax cut was designed to encourage companies to increase investor dividends. Theoretically, investors would either spend the dividends or reinvest them, either option will stimulate the economy. So after the dividend tax cut was passed, City Group raised its dividend 75 percent to $1.40. That is $140 a year for average investor holding 100 shares of City Group stock. But for Sandy Weill, the CEO of City Group, that is a whopping $27 million that he will bring in annually; $27 million, $16 million more than he received last year without the dividend tax cut. Of course, if you take the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, the numbers start soaring. Microsoft recently began offering a dividend of 8 cents per share. If you own 100 shares of Microsoft, you get an extra $8 this year. With that you can buy yourself a pretty good cheeseburger and fries in Houston, but what does Bill Gates get? He gets $82 million. Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities. We have pressing physical needs in our country. We cannot afford to provide adequate prescription drugs for our seniors. We cannot afford to rebuild our damaged bridges and highways. According to the Defense Department, we can afford to bring our troops home for a well-deserved rest and recuperation, but we cannot afford to fly them from their point of arrival in the U.S. to their hometowns. Over the past 3 years, we have had more than 3 million people out of work desperately looking for jobs. Yet, the central tenets of this administration's job creation program is to make tax cuts permanent, reduce government regulation, and allow companies to contribute less to their pension plans. Moreover, this administration wants to continue the free trade policies that have, without a doubt, caused undue harm on American workers. To me this plan seems more likely to produce job insecurity than job security. Mr. Speaker, in 3 straight years, we have had three consecutive tax cuts. These tax cuts have led to the dramatic decrease in jobs and an inconceivable increase in the debt. If tax cuts help an economy, why are we not doing so in Iraq in considering $87 billion on top of the $79 billion from last spring. I thought a stimulus was supposed to work the other way around. Is it not supposed to increase jobs and decrease the debt? Yet, every American knows that when your Visa bill gets too high, you are starting to indulge in too many things you cannot afford. To the average American family, getting a hold on our finances means making priorities and tough decisions. Yet, no family forced to cut back on spending would neglect to feed their children in order to pay for a Las Vegas vacation. Similarly, we should not be cutting crucial government services to pay for an inflated tax cut. Mr. Speaker, as we enter this new fiscal year, I hope my colleagues will learn from the fiscal follies of the past. And I hope we can collectively make a New Year's resolution to put the Federal Government's priorities in order, tighten our belts, and get our fiscal houses in order for the sake of our country, but more importantly, for the American people.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, over the past week there has been a lot of talk in the chambers of Congress about what it means to be patriotic. The Republican leadership would have us believe that patriotism is asking no questions and voicing no concerns. According to them, patriotism is simply handing over $87 billion tied with a bright red bow and a card attached to it that says, here is the money you asked for. Go ahead and spend it how you want. Madam Speaker, this is not patriotic. This would be neglecting our constitutional duty to oversee how taxpayers' dollars are spent, and it is an obligation that I think we need to take very seriously when considering this supplemental bill. We need to take it seriously not only for the taxpayers but also, more importantly, for our soldiers. There is not a person in this chamber who would vote against supporting our troops. They are serving bravely and honorably in a faraway land for far longer than anyone expected, and our prayers are with them and their families. Our troops are the true patriots, and the patriotism I see in this debate is demonstrated by those demanding the best for those troops. Unfortunately, the war plan may have failed to adequately protect our troops. Details may have been overlooked. Members of Congress returning from Iraq talk about the lack of Kevlar inserts and the need for heavier armor for Humvees. The $87 billion supplemental includes these items. But why were these items not in the $79 billion Congress provided the administration last spring? Kevlar inserts cost $517, $517 for a life-saving device. I ask my colleagues, why was there not enough money for each soldier to have a Kevlar insert? Did we not foresee our soldiers being shot at? Unfortunately, my question is not one that will be answered, or as the chief of the U.S. Central Command said last week, ``I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply.'' Madam Speaker, there is no answer, or at least no answer that could satisfy this Member of Congress. Where was the money to armor up our military vehicles? The Department of Defense thinks we only need $177 million to do it now. Again, why was this not done with the $79 billion appropriated last April? Why was the money not provided to protect our soldiers in these vehicles from gunshots and shrapnel from these roadside bombs? So, I say to my Republican friends, you will have to excuse us if we insist on exercising our constitutional duty, one that I happen to believe is our patriotic duty, to ensure that we get our priorities straight and protect our young men and women in Iraq and in Afghanistan. In examining patriotism and priorities, I cannot help but wonder if singlehandedly rebuilding Iraq while our country remains in economic downturn is the most patriotic use of this $20 billion in proposed reconstruction funding. I see part of this funding going towards a children's hospital in Iraq when right now I have 177,000 Texas children who have been dropped from the CHIPS program and they are crowding our emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. I want to help children in Iraq, but should we not be also addressing the problems here at home? I see this funding going toward building roads and bridges in Iraq when this Congress cannot pass a highway spending bill because we simply do not have enough money to fix our own roads and bridges here at home. This administration has misplaced priorities that come at the expense of the American people. In the name of free trade, we pushed our manufacturing companies and workers offshore. Our manufacturing sector is struggling to survive, and our economy has lost 3.2 million jobs over the last 3 years. For the second straight year now, more Americans are finding themselves in poverty. Our country has turned into a land of executives and service sector employees, creating an ever-widening gulf between the rich and poor that is extinguishing what is left of our middle class in America. This administration's fiscal policies have come at the expense of the American people. Oh, we will hear that we can have it all. They will tell us we can fight a war, rebuild a country, cut taxes, save Social Security, and provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit which is less than half of what they really need. But what they do not tell us is that we cannot pay for it. We are going to incur the largest deficit in this Nation's history, and our children and grandchildren will be paying off the national debt for generations to come. Tough decisions must be made to get this country back on track, and it takes courage and leadership to make the right decisions for our soldiers, for the American people, and for this country. Putting the American people first. Now, that is what patriotism is.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to clarify that Congress specifically authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to establish a Do Not Call Registry. During debate last year on the Do Not Call Registry, I had initially preferred that Congress enact even stronger language. But, in voting for the registry, I never thought that the language we enacted wouldn't be sufficient enough to withstand judicial review. Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. They want the power to reduce the number of annoying telemarketing calls that too often interrupt the precious, yet increasingly limited, time that they spend with their families. The response has been tremendous I've joined over 50 million Americans who have already signed up for the registry, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet. The Do Not Call Registry is a popular consumer protection tool that needs to be implemented. The FTC has moved swiftly on behalf of consumers, and we should do the same. If the FTC needs this specific authority, then let's pass this bill today, get it to the President and make sure that there is no disruption in the FTC's ambitious timeline to make the Do Not Call Registry a reality for millions of American consumers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This important legislation will authorize critical flood control projects across the country, including authorizing a project for Halls Bayou to be constructed by the local sponsor and reimbursed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Located in a 42-square-mile watershed in North Central Harris County, Halls Bayou is already an authorized project, but this bill allows for Halls Bayou work to be done more quickly and with more local input, which is what my constituents want. After Halls Bayou is added as a Section 211(f) project under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the local sponsor will be able to pursue the General Reevaluation Review and identify a Federal project that will protect homes and businesses from the risk of flooding. The local sponsor has already constructed a detention area in the Halls Bayou watershed at Keith. Weiss Park, but a full Federal project is urgently needed. We are also acquiring other areas for detention in anticipation of the new authorization for Halls Bayou. Back in 2001 Tropical Storm Allison flooded almost 13,000 homes in the Halls Bayou watershed, a tributary of Greens Bayou, which saw another 15,000 homes flooded. Recently Hurricane Isabel showed the Nation the damage one of these storms can do, even to the most developed, advanced nation in the world. And often, it is not the wind that is the problem, it is the water. Isabel showed why Federal flood control projects are needed more than ever in our country. Clearly the sooner this legislation is approved, the better for my constituents. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Costello, Texans Nick Lampson and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and to my friend Bob Menendez for their work getting this bill together and looking out for the critical flood control needs of Harris County. Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves the support of the full House.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise both in support of the conference committee report and thank both the chairman and the ranking member for putting this together. Obviously, we need more money. I want to raise an issue that some of my colleagues in the Harris County delegation will talk about, including the functioning of the Customs and Border Protection at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. We have problems with our wait times for our passengers up to 2 hours. It is causing many international passengers to miss their connection. The Houston Chronicle has reported twice on the growing anger of people waiting in line to clear Customs and Border Protection. Missed flights are a major problem because of the wait time. For example, one airline had over 1,000 people miss connections in one day this summer. We need additional inspectors at Intercontinental Airport, a commitment to maintaining 100 percent the utilization of the number of authorized positions, including overtime for the inspectors who are there to cover the problem. We have looked at the numbers in other parts of the country at international ports of entry, and we know we are lower than other areas. So we need to make sure that Customs and Border Protection makes that adjustment. The Members from the Houston area, the nine Members will meet tomorrow again with Customs and Border Protection, and hopefully they will understand that we need to have parity and not the wait time that we are seeing for our the international passengers coming into the Houston Intercontinental Airport.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the state of our ailing economy. The administration recently announced that it is requesting $87 billion from Congress to fund the war and rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq's infrastructure and the economy. This is in addition to the $79 billion that Congress made available for these efforts last spring. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with fighting the war against terrorism, whether it is in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but I am wondering where the funding is to rebuild our own economy. Just put this $87 billion in context for those in the Chamber and for our constituents at home, $87 billion is more than our government spends on any domestic agency, with the exception of the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. With this request, we will spend more rebuilding Iraq than we will spend rebuilding crumbling American roads and bridges. We will spend more in Iraq than we spend on rebuilding outdated schools where our children are educated. In fact, we will spend more rebuilding Iraq than President Lyndon Johnson spent to fund the entire Federal Government in his first year in office, and that was the first year of our Great Society. My colleagues on the Republican side talk about how bad it was; well, we are actually spending more in Iraq than we were in the first year of the Great Society. While this administration is focused like a laser beam on Iraq, and I agree with some of that, we are falling asleep at the wheel while driving our economy. Quite frankly, our economy is swerving and is heading for a wreck. If you have lost your job or cashed your last unemployment check, you already know you are in a wreck. Mr. Speaker, we have presided over the largest fiscal reversal in history by turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $3.3 trillion deficit. Under this administration's economic leadership, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs, and these jobs will not return, if you read the business sections of our major dailies. The gross domestic product growth has averaged 1.6 percent, and real business investment has fallen to 10.4 percent. Now, if we show these figures to the administration, we will hear their cries of recession and economic swings. Well, this country has weathered recessions before, but these figures do not represent just any recession. These figures represent the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. That is right, the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. This administration has the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover presided over the Great Depression. And as much as this administration hates to admit it, tax cuts are not the answer to every economic problem. Oh, they promised us that cutting taxes would ease the burden on businesses and pave the way for job creation. Well, since the President took office, we have had three major tax cuts and lost 3.2 million jobs. That is over a million jobs lost for each tax cut. And this Congress, by the way, enacted those tax cuts. This country has already lost 437,000 jobs this year, raising our unemployment levels to 6.1 percent. Factory employment in this country has declined in every single month for the last 3 years. In fact, of the 3.2 million jobs lost under this administration, 2.7 of them are manufacturing jobs. And over 150,000 of those manufacturing jobs come from my home State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of representing the 29th District of Texas, and it is the third most blue-collar district in the country, according to the last census. These good-paying jobs belonged to my constituents and provided them with a livable wage and a good chance to achieve the American dream. In 1950, manufacturing jobs represented one-third of our country's labor market. Today they represent one-tenth. Part of this country's economic problem is it does not make anything anymore. It is great to be the information economy, but it is not great if you do not have anything to have any information about. Our push for free trade has pushed our products and our jobs right out of this country. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Port of Houston, the second largest port in our country. The port has been an economic boon for both the city of Houston and Texas and our region. But for the sake of our country, I just wish those ships going out of the port were as full as when they come in. Mr. Speaker, our country is in a dire economic situation. It does not take too much to go out and listen to our constituents to know that. Like my colleagues, I listened intently when the President recently talked about the need for unity and sacrifice, and I think he is right. But our country's economy and unemployed workers have sacrificed enough. It is high time that this administration made some sacrifices and the tough decisions necessary to start putting this country and all of our people first.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. My opposition stems not from wanting to tax the Internet access or to impose dual taxes on e-commerce. I oppose the bill because it does not follow the precedent set by previous Internet tax moratorium legislation in holding harmless States that have enacted access taxes previous to 1998. This bill would have what I consider an enormous impact on the State of Texas. The effect of this bill would be felt as early as November of this year. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the fiscal crises that our States are currently finding themselves in, including the State of Texas. The State of Texas is one of those States facing a budget problem, and I cannot support legislation that would take away $45 million in annual revenue in our State, that my State has been depending on for the last 5 years. The $45 million in funds are needed for critical State programs, such as children's health care. Our last legislative session, because of our budget problem, dropped 175,000 children off of children's health care. So what are we going to do about taking a hit from this, drop even more children? My State is not the only one. Connecticut would lose $15 million; Ohio, $12 million; Wisconsin, $7.5 million; Tennessee, $4 million; North Dakota, $2.5 million; South Dakota, $1.7 million; and New Mexico, $1 million. I oppose the bill for procedural reasons, because I hoped to be able to consider this under an open rule that would allow Members from these States adversely affected by the grandfathering provision to allow amendments to protect their State laws. Without that opportunity, I have no choice but to vote in the best interests of my own State, as I assume a lot of other Members from States losing money will, and, again, taking away the States' ability to do it, to tax what they have already done. I guess my frustration is that in Texas we in 1999 changed our taxes to where everything under $25 is exempt for your access to Internet service. But for some reason we still have State taxes and Federal taxes on access to our telephones. On the point I am concerned about, I hope we can adopt the 3-year extension language that is similar to the Senate bill so that we can continue to hold harmless those States that are depending on this crucial revenue, particularly in this time of budget shortfalls and the disaster that is happening to some of our State programs because of State budget cuts.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow our nation's seniors to keep more of their hard-earned money. Many seniors prefer to remain active in their retirement, even though they may have chosen to leave their career jobs. Some seniors find second careers later in life which enrich their lives and supplement their income. Unfortunately, the Social Security Earnings Test prohibited these individuals from receiving full Social Security benefits if their incomes exceeded a certain amount. The earnings test was especially unfair for seniors who relied on that additional income to supplement their Social Security checks, because they would, in effect, lose half of their Social Security benefit. Recognizing the unfairness of this situation, the Congress passed, and on April 7, 2000, President Clinton signed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This law eliminated the Social Security earnings test for recipients between the ``full retirement age'' (currently age 65 and eight months) and age 70. While this law was a great victory for seniors who chose to work once they reached retirement age, it does not eliminate the earnings test for seniors who choose to retire early at age 62. These individuals, who might also rely on employment income to supplement their Social Security checks, are simply out of luck. This situation unfairly penalizes many seniors who need to continue to work after they reach retirement age. The Bureau of Labor Services compiled an experimental Consumer Price Index for the elderly, which found that the prices of goods bought by the general public rose by 66.5 percent, while it rose by 72.6 percent for seniors. This difference of over six percent is significant for someone living on a fixed income, as most seniors do. By penalizing individuals who work in addition to receiving Social Security benefits, we are hurting those most in need of assistance. Seniors should not be forced to choose between their Social Security benefits and earned income. Additionally, forcing seniors to leave the workforce early signifies a valuable loss to our country in terms of skilled and experienced workers. More than ever America is in need of skilled workers. We should be encouraging these individuals to continue contributing to our economy through their tax dollars, and the additional goods they can consume thanks to their added income. That is why I am introducing the Social Security Earnings Test Repeal Act of 2003. This legislation would amend title II of the Social Security Act by removing the limitation on the amount of outside income which an individual may earn while receiving benefits under such title. Social Security is a right earned by workers through their hard work. The Social Security Earnings Test Repeal Act of 2003 will allow retirees to rejoin the workforce without the fear of a loss of benefits. We have no right to forbid or difficult someone's desire to work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote 503 on H.R. 2658, the motion to close the conference. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Michaud motion to instruct conferees on the Medicare prescription drug bill. This motion remedies two of the most controversial provisions of the House bill by striking provisions of the bill which would require privatization of the Medicare program by 2010, and ensuring that there is a government fall-back plan for beneficiaries who do not have access to a private plan. Over the August recess, my seniors made it clear that they do not want the Medicare program privatized. They like Medicare, they trust it, and they know that it will take care of them when they need it. On the flip side, they know that private insurance companies have abandoned them year after year, have raised their premiums, raised their copays, and raised their deductibles, all while slashing their benefits. They don't trust Medicare HMOs any farther than they can throw them. Our seniors don't want HMOs, and this Congress shouldn't force them on them. Now on the government fallback provision, you don't need to be an insurance expert to know that insurers aren't going to sell a policy that everyone is going to make claims against. And we know that 86 percent of seniors have prescription drug costs. So we know that individuals buying these policies are going to use them. The risks of individual claims far outweigh any potential profits from these policies. Insurers know that, seniors know that and I think even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that. But if they admit that, than I guess they'd have to admit that the private market just does not work for Medicare beneficiaries. So they've refused to allow for even the possibility that private insurers won't participate in this plan. But I would argue that, if the private market really works for this population, than they shouldn't have any objection to a government fall-back, because--if they're right--they're never going to need it. Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, fixing these two provisions would clear the way for passage of this legislation. I think anyone who has campaigned that they would be the ones to fight for a prescription drug benefit should vote for this motion to instruct conferees so that we can move this process forward, get a prescription drug benefit enacted and actually start providing some help to our seniors. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 2003, Dr. Shelby M. Elliott will retire as president of the Texas Chiropractic College. I rise to congratulate Dr. Elliott on his successful tenure at Texas Chiropractic College and to wish him well in his retirement. Shelby M. Elliott was born in Wild Cherry, Arkansas, the eldest son of parents who instilled the values of hard work and the importance of attaining as much education as possible. After attending pre- chiropractic coursework at Paducah Community College, he completed his Doctor of Chiropractic degree at Texas Chiropractic College, then enrolled in Logan College of Chiropractic and earned a second doctorate. He maintained a successful chiropractic practice in Dayton, Texas for 38 years and held several key business and civic leadership positions, including president of the Rotary Club of Dayton, charter member of the Dayton American Legion Post No. 512, board member of the Moody National Bank and the First Texas Bank, and member of the Dayton School Board and the Dayton-Liberty Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Elliott was honored as ``Young Chiropractor of the Year'' in 1964 and as ``Chiropractor of the Year'' in 1971 by the Texas Chiropractic Association and has been awarded the coveted Keeler Plaque. He was also awarded the ``William D. Harper Science of Existence Award'' in 1988 by Texas Chiropractic College, the ``Lifetime Chiropractic Achievement Award'' in 1988 and the ``Doctor of the Year'' in 1990 by the American Chiropractic Association and was honored as ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce in 1996. I first met Doc Elliott in 1974 when he ran for State representative in East Texas. His loss was healthcare's gain. He has held every elective position in local, State and national chiropractic associations. Shelby Elliott served as president of the Board of Governors for the American Chiropractic Association for an unprecedented five years, during his nine-year tenure on this board. He even served nine years on the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, having been appointed by two different governors. Shelby Elliott was appointed as the twelfth president of Texas Chiropractic College on September 1, 1990. At the time of his appointment, the Texas Chiropractic College was suffering with significant financial and morale problems. The Texas Chiropractic College Board of Regents recognized that the college needed a leader with vision and focused discipline. Fortunately, the Board of Regents was able to convince Shelby Elliott to accept the position of president and retire from professional practice for the sake of saving Texas Chiropractic College from bankruptcy and closure. Dr. and Mrs. Connie Elliott personally gave $10,000 of their own funds to renovate the president's office when they began, and have always been leaders in financial support to the Texas Chiropractic College. Dr. and Mrs. Elliott even donated the Texas Chiropractic College landmark sign that welcomes visitors to the campus. Today, the Texas Chiropractic College is financially secure, with cash reserves thanks to Dr. Elliott's financial management skills. During his successful tenure, Dr. Elliott has built four beautiful and significant campus buildings within a five year period, improving the college's capacity to provide quality education for a new generation of health care providers. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Shelby Elliott is a legend in Texas and will be sorely missed. As a fitting tribute to his dedication to the Texas Chiropractic College, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Dr. Shelby Elliott for his fine work and to wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Davis amendment to the D.C. Appropriations bill. Our country has a rich tradition of providing a quality education to every child in America. I am a strong believer in America's public schools. My wife taught in them for more than a quarter century. Many of my family members and friends are public school teachers. My wife and I are both graduates of public schools, as are our children. My children, Angie and Chris, both graduated from public schools, and went on to attend the University of Texas and Texas A&M, respectively. My daughter attended the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and is now doing her residency in internal medicine there. These are all public schools. I am proud of the adults they have become, and know that they owe many of their successes to the fine educations they've received at these public schools. So I am disheartened by attempts like this one which seek to dismantle America's public school program. I know that proponents of this measure will argue that students in failing schools deserve better--and I couldn't agree with them more. But vouchers are not the answer. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the average voucher covers only a small part of the costs of private school tuition. The vouchers provided in this legislation would not go far enough to help all students attend private schools. Only those with incomes sufficient to cover the remainder of the tuition would be able to truly have a choice. That leaves low-income students that much further behind. Additionally, vouchers are unproven. The evidence is unclear as to whether students actually do better in private schools than in public schools with smaller class sizes. If we are really committed to providing every child with a top-notch education, we should implement proven reforms in all schools--qualified teachers, small class sizes, updated materials, and advanced technologies. Ninety percent of America's kids to go public schools. If we're going to keep our promise to these kids, we need to make sure that all of them--not just the fortunate few who can actually afford private schools--receive a quality education.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First of all, let me say to all of our colleagues, we are almost going to hear from every Member who represents a section of Harris County and the city of Houston. As we can tell, there is difference of opinion, but there is also some misinformation. Let me correct what has been said. There is a referendum on the ballot for November. No matter what we do today, there will be a referendum on the ballot. The ballot language may be changed in a couple of weeks, but the issue of bonds under State law is what our local Metro board has to do. They have to have a referendum. And that referendum will be about a plan, at least the first installment, we hope, of a plan that will really bring more light rail to Houston. It will serve more than what is already planned. We already have a 7.5 mile segment that is built with local money because of the original amendment in this bill that serves from downtown out to our football stadium and the Astrodome and serves the medical center and Rice University and lots of areas in between; but to serve areas in my district, we have to have a referendum. To serve northside and east end of Houston, we have to have a referendum, and that is why we do not need this language in the bill. It is important that Houston is the only city in the country that has been held to this higher standard. Granted, the amendment that is in the bill by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is better than the original language, but we are still spelling out that they have to put the projects in the referendum. We do not do that for any other city, in fact, cities that are much smaller than the fourth largest city in the country. That is why it is unfair to do this. I was an opponent of heavy rail because I think in Houston we are so geographically diverse, and for years as a legislator I opposed it; but I watched how other cities in the country have used light rail, and it hurts me as a Houstonian to say that even the city of Dallas is successfully using light rail and Federal dollars to expand without jumping through the hoops that we would require them to do if the original language in this bill is done. That is why I rise in support of the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. Jackson-Lee) amendment. Again, two of those lines that are on the ballot that will be approved come to my area. They are not all in district 18. They serve an area near east end. I represent a district that is very urban and also suburban; so I realize we need light rail along with lots of highway construction; and for years it have been known that I love to build highways, but I also know we cannot build them fast enough in Houston to solve the problems of transit any more than Dallas could, any more than any other part of the country, any other urban area in the country can do it. That is why we need to take all the language out of the bill and let the Houstonians and the people who are in that metro area pass this bond election in November and expand the light rail with Federal funding like many cities that are much smaller than us. Unfortunately, this legislation prohibits the use of Federal funds for planning, designing and building this light rail unless it is itemized in there. And as much as I would like to see my two projects in my area itemized, the city of Houston or any city does not list in their bond what water projects they are going to do. They are going to do as many as they can because they need to have that local flexibility. But I will tell the Members what, if Metro does not do the plan that they have, I would be the first one back up here to say wait a minute, they fooled the voters of Houston and they will be punished for that. They should not do that. Do not hold the city of Houston and my constituents to a higher standard than we hold Dallas, than we hold any other city in the country, including many that are much smaller. We have a referendum plan. The voters will make that decision this November, and let us let the voters make that decision with their Federal tax dollars to help with light rail, and that is why I support the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Friday July 25, 2003, I had to return to Houston for urgent business, and missed a number of votes. I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would I have voted in the following manner: On rollcall No. 447, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 448, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 449, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 450, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 451, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 452, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 453, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 454, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 455, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 456, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 457, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall No. 458, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 459, I would have voted ``aye.''