Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, and I would not be here this morning supporting this reimportation bill if we had passed a real pharmaceutical prescription drug plan under Medicare that did not have a hole you could drive an M-1A tank through. I have constituents who now go to Mexico and order pharmaceuticals through Canada on the Internet. I have bought pharmaceuticals in Mexico myself to use. They are safe. We need to make sure they are available for our constituents legally. If we are not going to pass a real pharmaceutical prescription drug plan under Medicare, we need to at least pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pharmaceuticals Market Access Act, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation. For far too long, Americans have been paying a premium for prescription drugs. Our constituents are paying top dollar for their drugs, while citizens from other industrialized countries like Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Great Britain are getting deeply discounted prescription drugs. American consumers are charged, on average, 38 percent more than consumers in Canada, 31 percent more than citizens of Great Britain, 45 percent more than French consumers, and 48 percent more than Italian citizens. This is simply unacceptable. Now I know that opponents of this bill will try to muddy the waters by raising the specter that reimportation is unsafe and unfair, but this is simply not true. Manufacturers have been safely importing drugs into this country for years. In 2001 alone, they spent $14.7 billion bringing prescription drugs into the United States. Additionally, H.R. 2427 specifically prohibits counterfeit drugs, drugs that have been tampered with, and expired drugs from entering the United States. Under this bill, only FDA approved drugs would be allowed into the country. The only difference from U.S. manufactured drugs will be the more affordable price. And don't be alarmed by cries that this will decrease research and development into new medicines. Pharmaceutical companies' after-tax profits--and after expenditures for R&D--averaged 17 percent from 1994 to 1998. This leaves plenty of money for R&D. The bottom line is that opponents of this bill want to protect pharmaceutical industry profits. I urge my colleagues to stand up a against these special interests, and for your constituents.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Since 1965, Head Start has successfully provided comprehensive child development and family support services for more than 20 million low-income preschool children and their families. Programs are designed locally and are administered by a network of 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year this program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these children are better prepared when they enter kindergarten. It is an extremely effective and popular program, one that we should be working to strengthen. We should be working to strengthen the educational component for the children and their parents. We should be continuing the health care, not referrals away from the Head Start center sites. We should strengthen accountability and cover more children. We have great examples in my own congressional district that I represent of successful public school- and Head Start-provided cooperation, putting both Federal dollars and public dollars, and local State dollars to effectiveness, serving more children. We do not need to block grant it. I have watched States this year reduce educational funds. We do not need to do that to Head Start. This is not reform. This bill deforms Head Start. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act. Since 1965, Head Start has successfully provided comprehensive child development and family support services to more than 20 million low- income preschool children and their families. Programs are locally designed, and are administered by a network of about 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year, this program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these children are better prepared when they enter kindergarten. This is an extremely effective and popular program, and one that we should be working together to strengthen. We should be strengthening the educational component and better health care effort but that is not the focus of H.R. 2210. Instead, H.R. 2210 seeks to dismantle the program by moving it closer to a State block grant, despite evidence that these are lower-quality, less comprehensive programs. Despite claims that the legislation we are considering today is improved from previous versions, this bill still allows States to weaken educational standard by increasing class size, increasing child- teacher ratio, shortening program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds from services, and using unproven curricula. The bill would undermine the comprehensive nature of the program by eliminating parent-classroom involvement, health and mental health screenings and services, adult literacy services, vision and dental services, and health and nutrition education. This bill would also allowing States to use Head Start funds to supplant other Federal funds. I don't know about you, but I don't want Head Start funds to be paving highways and building bridges. And as my colleague from California will point out, this legislation repeals longstanding civil rights protections for employees of Head Start programs operating through faith-based organizations. This bill would allow taxpayer dollars to be used to support discrimination in hiring based on religion. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Head Start program isn't perfect, but rather than working toward bipartisan improvements to the program, this bill is a partisan effort at dismantling this program. Our children deserve better. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2210.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th District of Texas. This bill provides $33.7 million for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, which will allow our Nation's second largest port to continue to grow and handle the heavy energy and petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the smooth economic functioning of our nation. The Port of Houston is home to the single largest petrochemical complex in the country, with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 percent of the Nation's petrochemical capacity. By increasing the capability of the Ship Channel to handle newer, larger tankers more safely, Congress will directly increase the energy security of our nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. If we can obtain an additional $15 million as this legislation moves forwards, the construction on the Ship Channel can be completed within the fiscal year. The Ship Channel is one of the primary economic engines in my District and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of thousands of jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands across the State. For flood control, this legislation provides $1 million for flood protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8,000 homes flooded in the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to moderate income. When complete, the $180 million Hunting Bayou Federal Flood Control Project will reduce the number of structures in the 100-year flood plain in the watershed from 5,500 to 800, and the local sponsor is projected to cover half of the total project cost. The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during the event occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start moving dirt down there as soon as possible. I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to H.R. 2657, the Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education Appropriations bill. This bill is the single most important appropriations bill we will consider. It provides funding for critical programs such as Head Start, the National Institutes of Health, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Pell Grants, the Community Access Program, the Centers for Disease Control, and countless other programs that directly serve most Americans. This is the bill that, more clearly than any other bill, shows the glaring differences between the parties, because this bill woefully underfunds almost every one of the programs I just mentioned. For example, many of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill breaks the Majority's promise made in the FY 2004 Budget Resolution to provide a $3 billion increase from the previous year for the Department of Education. This means less money for programs like Title I, on which my schools rely to help educate low-income and disadvantaged children. This bill falls $334 million short of the majority's promise to provide $1.0 billion more for the poor and minority children who aren't getting the education they need and deserve. Further, the bill eliminates other No Child Left Behind programs like Drop-Out Prevention Grants, freezes State Assessment Grants, and shortchanges Safe Schools Initiatives, only a few of the programs that the current legislation affects. In fact, annual increases in the Federal investment in discretionary education programs have actually spiraled downward since the act was signed into law--from 18.2 percent in FY 2002 to 6.4 percent in FY 2003 to a meager 4.3 percent in FY 2004 under this bill--the smallest dollar increase in 4 years and the smallest percentage increase in 8 years. Public health programs also suffer in the proposed appropriations bill. The bill provides an overall increase for NIH of just 2.5 percent-- the smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years and a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH has received during the past 5 years under the bipartisan program to double the biomedical research budget. The bill's 2.5 percent increase would fall short of what is needed merely to keep up with inflation in research costs, which NIH estimates at 3.3 percent. And as I mentioned during debate on my colleague from Wisconsin's amendment, this legislation does not do nearly enough to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is critical to my constituents in Houston, helping them to pay their cooling bills. It is 91 degrees in Houston today, with 88 percent humidity. This summer, temperatures can be expected to average in the high 90s. Senior citizens rely on LIHEAP to help protect them from these extreme conditions. Yet this legislation underfunds it by $200 million. This is a serious problem, and don't just take my word for it. Even the President of the United States, in his Statement of Administrative Policy, expresses his disappointment at the funding level, saying that this funding level ``could limit the ability to address the heating and cooling needs of low-income families.'' There are so many problems with this legislation that there is simply no way to improve it. There is no money to shuffle from one account to another in this bill, because all of these programs are critical. We simply don't provide enough funding for them, and that's because we have squandered our resources on a tax cut. This bill makes that priorities of the leadership clear--tax cuts for the wealthy, and program cuts for everyone else. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their efforts. I rise in support of the Obey substitute, and specifically the increase in Low Income Home Energy Assistance funding it provides. The underlying bill has only $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP funding appropriations and a small $100 million account for contingencies. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wisely provides $2.25 billion in regular appropriations for LIHEAP. For low-income and elderly Americans trying to weather through the terrible energy bills in this country, LIHEAP is critical, and every dollar helps out. But for folks from the South, there is even a bigger reason to support the funding level in the Obey amendment. LIHEAP funding has a $1.9 billion threshold, which means that after funding exceeds that level, Southern States that use LIHEAP for cooling during the summer months receive a fairer portion of the funding. People die from heat more than from cold in our country. The Obey amendment provides an additional $28 million in low-income assistance for Texans struggling to pay their electric bills. Texas LIHEAP averages about $500 per family, so that means an additional 56,000 families could be reached just in Texas alone. The President in his Statement of Administrative Policy says he believes we need more LIHEAP funding. I bet if he saw the levels in the Obey amendment and if he saw what it means for low-income Texans, he would support it, too. I strongly believe that the LIHEAP formula needs to be reformed to address the situation in the hotter Southern States. Texas receives the second lowest amount per low-income person in the country under LIHEAP, about $10. Minnesota receives $160 per low-income person. My colleagues know that heat causes serious health problems that can kill. According to the National Weather Service, in 2000 and 2001, there were 324 heat- related deaths and 30 cold-related deaths. Heat worsens heart conditions, lung conditions, diabetes, circulatory conditions. During a Texas summer, for old folks and the disabled and those with chronic conditions, air conditioning is a lifesaver, not a luxury. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding me the time, and also the chairman of the committee. Both the Ready to Teach Act and the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act try to improve teacher training and quality and retention. I congratulate the Committee on Education and the Workforce on these two bills, but both these bills fall short in one important area. They fail to correct the problem of the government pension offset, or what is called the GPO. The Committee on Education and the Workforce cannot address this major reason people are leaving the teaching profession because they do not have the jurisdiction. In my home State of Texas, teachers are leaving the profession in droves because of the unfair GPO. This provision reduces spousal benefits by two-thirds and, in some cases, eliminates benefits altogether. The GPO is a problem for many public servants, but especially bad for women. Eighty percent of the Texas school teachers and retirees are women. Sixty percent of that group are married. Almost all of them are eligible for Medicare through their husbands, and none of them are eligible for their spousal Social Security benefit because of the government pension offset. After a lifetime of being underpaid as teachers, they depend on their Social Security widow's benefit to make up for it in their retirement; but the GPO, the government pension offset, takes away that widow's benefit. The only way some teachers can escape this unfair mentality is by working their last day in a job covered by Social Security and their retirement system. This last-day exemption is the only way teachers can get a fair retirement benefit; but this House is trying to take that away, and we debated this issue a few months back when the House voted narrowly on H.R. 743, the so-called Social Security Protection Act. That language would eliminate the last-day exemption and cause many of my Texas teachers to lose their widow's benefits. Teachers in Texas are retiring by the busload so that they can get their benefits before the Senate acts to take them away. This is a serious problem in Texas and other States that do not have Social Security as part of their teacher retirement system, and it is causing a serious retention problem. Debating these bills today is good, but we really need to look at why teachers are leaving the profession instead of getting into it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, following the gentleman from North Carolina, my good friend, it is frustrating because I feel the same thing, that we were given a plan and even though we spent 3 days and a long night debating it in committee we did not really get to legislate because we really had a plan given to us and it was either take it or leave it. But this is the most important issue that we will consider this year not only for our seniors but for everyone. I know a lot of my colleagues feel that we should support any legislation because it is a step in the right direction or maybe it is like the Senate bill. This is not the Senate bill. The Senate has a better idea. It is not as good as I would like, but it is better than what we have on the floor today. This legislation would require Medicare to move to a competitive program by 2010. A lot of different terms are used to describe the model in this bill, whether it is called defined contribution, voucher, premium support, or something else, but it abolishes Medicare as we know it. The bottom line is it is privatization of Medicare. It will take the responsibility of providing meaningful, affordable, quality health insurance away from the government, like 1965, and shift the burden onto the shoulders of our seniors. The legislation relies entirely on private insurance plans to provide drug benefits for seniors. No government fall-back plan, no safety nets for seniors living in areas where drug plans do not offer coverage. It places blind faith in private drug plans that they will sign people up. That is the ultimate in faith-based policy making. There is a huge gap in this coverage that will disproportionately hurt individuals who need drug coverage. Those with the highest drug costs, they will fall into this doughnut hole. Once one has a little over $3,000 a year up to a little over $5,000, they fall in this hole. I talked to a senior this evening who has a little over $300 a month in prescription drug cost. They will still pay their $35 plus a month, but they will not get one dime of benefits because they will be in this doughnut hole. The ultimate anti-competitive part is that this bill prohibits the Secretary from negotiating lower drug costs. The VA does it, Medicare does it, private insurance does it, but we are prohibiting in this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reduce costs for our seniors. That is why it is outrageous. The substitute, on the other hand, is the kind of benefit that seniors support. It is affordable, comprehensive, and will actually help drive down the costs of prescription drugs. Yes, it's more expensive than the base bill, but you cannot provide a prescription drug benefit on the cheap. Finally, there's one issue that I'd like to raise about a provision that would limit the ability of physicians to refer patients to specialty hospitals in which they have a financial interest. There is language in the Senate bill which could hurt some innovative practices that are occurring in specialty hospitals. Patients need access to a broad range of facilities, and should be able to choose a hospital that has expertise in their specific health needs. I know that some have suggested limiting the percentage profit that physicians can enjoy under these arrangements, or to limit the percentage of physician ownership and I hope that both sides can sit down and reach a solution to this problem.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for allowing me to talk on this rule, but mainly talk about a rule that will come up in a few minutes. Madam Speaker, a critical part of the legislative process is to be able to amend legislation so that we can improve it. The rule on Medicare prescription drugs does not allow us to do that. The continued efforts by the leadership of the House to stifle debate on this issue can no longer be tolerated. Although the rule does allow a substitute, which is better than last year, which I appreciate, there are so many other important amendments that should be debated on the floor on this, one of the most important issues this Congress will consider this year, this prescription drug package for our senior citizens. The Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up this legislation for 3 days last week, the Democratic side offered dozens of amendments that would significantly improve the legislation. Several of these amendments were very close or tie votes, including one amendment that I offered to close that gap in coverage that is part of the so-called prescription drug benefit plan. That would close that doughnut hole that our seniors are going to fall into under the majority Republican plan. But the Committee on Rules would not let us offer these same amendments, amendments which should have been offered and may have passed on this floor. One amendment was discussed by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio, regarding a provision in this bill that prohibits the Health and Human Services Secretary from negotiating for cheaper prices for our seniors. That is just wrong. We do not prohibit the VA from doing it. We do not prohibit our States from doing it. In fact, the Committee on Energy and Commerce bill that passed allowed States to do that; yet we are saying that the Federal Government cannot get cheaper prices for our seniors. That amendment should be on this floor. Madam Speaker, it is far too important for us to rush a debate on a prescription drug benefit for seniors and only have 1 day. The Senate has been debating this bill for the past 2 weeks, but in the House we are going to do this and rush it through in one afternoon. That is not the way our forefathers designed this House to legislate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule when it comes up and obviously to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, after 14 years as president of the Texas AFL-CIO, Joe Gunn has announced that he will retire. I rise today to congratulate Joe and to wish him well in his retirement. Joe Gunn has actively served the workers of the State of Texas for many years. He went to work for Southwestern Bell in 1949 and joined the Communications Workers of America, Local 6222 on the same day. During his 22 years with Southwestern Bell, Joe spent 11 years in full-time service to Local 6222. Joe ran for job steward and was easily elected. Within a very short time, he ran for Chief Steward and was again elected. Always looking for more challenges, Joe ran for and was elected first as a vice president and then as president of Local 6222. That is when I met Joe in 1972. In a short time, Joe was elected and served as a vice president and as the president of the Harris County AFL-CIO. In January, 1979, Joe was elected as the secretary-treasurer of the Texas AFL-CIO. He served in this capacity until his election as president on July 29, 1989. But Joe's life has involved more than the CWA or the AFL-CIO. Joe also served for seven years as a Commissioner on the Texas Employment Commission, the precursor to the Texas Workforce Commission. He was first appointed to this position by former Governor Dolph Briscoe. He has also served his community by holding such positions as vice president of the Harris County United Way, the Houston Council Boy Scouts Executive Council,and youth director of his church. Joe is married to Dorothy Ann Taylor Gunn. They have ten children, six of which were foster children. He and his wife attend the United Methodist Church in Austin. Joe Gunn never forgot that his purpose was to improve the working conditions of all Texans. He has always represented workers and has worked tirelessly for a safe workplace, fair pay and respect for all employees, union and non-union. He is a legend and a force in Texas politics and will not be forgotten or easily replaced. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Joe Gunn for his many years of service and to wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. This legislation aims to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to band together to increase their purchasing power and negotiate lower rates for health insurance. I know that our small businesses are struggling with their health insurance costs. With double-digit increases in premiums, Madam Speaker, many small businesses simply cannot afford to continue to provide coverage for their employees. And while I support measures to make health insurance more affordable, I have concerns that this legislation would not achieve that end. In fact, studies by both the Congressional Budget Office and RAND have indicated that existing AHPs have not reduced insurance costs for participants. I also have concerns about this legislation because it would exempt AHPs from state insurance regulations that protect patients and families. In Texas, health plans are required to cover maternity care, immunizations for children, mammography breast cancer screening, diabetes treatments and supplies, and certain mental health services. H.R. 660 would exempt AHPs from covering these vital services. I don't think that small businesses and trade associations should have to sacrifice quality in order to afford their health insurance. By taking away these vital patient protections, the policies purchased under AHPs would be worth little more than the paper they are printed on. The Kind/Andrews amendment, however, corrects many of these concerns by allowing small businesses to purchase insurance through a Small Employees Health Benefit Plan, similar to the FEHBP. This system would ensure that quality of health plans are protected, that low income employees have assistance to purchase policies, and that the smallest of small businesses get the additional assistance they need. I urge my colleagues to support the Kind/Andrews alternative, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have so much to be proud of in our country: our young people serving in the military, protecting our Nation, our law enforcement working long hours to make us safe. We can even celebrate last night the Houston Astros winning a no-hitter against the New York Yankees with six pitchers. What we cannot be proud of and what bothers many Americans is we have had three different congressional committee members ask the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to release all the information and audiotapes concerning the use of our Federal law enforcement to track Texas legislators. This sounds like an abuse of authority, and it smells. Our law enforcement should not be used for partisan political purposes. Release these tapes and let the American people decide who is wasting our law enforcement's time, when they should be protecting our Nation, looking for Texas legislators.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1320, and I would like to thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey, Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell, the dean of the House, for the opportunity to work with them on this beneficial legislation, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I am pleased that our House leadership has moved this bill to the floor in a timely manner. This is good, consensus legislation. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act is a reasonable, effective effort to allow American consumers to more quickly benefit from the ambitious rollout of wireless technologies that America's wireless industry is planning in the near future. By freeing up federal spectrum for the market, consumers who are coming to depend on mobile communications will greatly benefit. Wireless technology increases economic efficiency and productivity, increases convenience and connectivity for individuals and families, and is ready to be a major growth sector of the technology economy. I would like to point out some key aspects of this bill that make it deserving of support by all in this House. Number 1 is filling national security needs. This bill has a sustainable and predictable funding mechanism to ensure DOD does not have to cut corners with their communications. Robust communications are especially critical to our modern military's ability to get its job done, and DOD, and all other federal agencies should be fully, 100 percent compensated for spectrum relocation costs. Number two is the Congressional oversight of the spectrum auction and relocation process to be led by the Commerce Committee and the GAO. While the Department of Defense may be the most essential federal agency and one with a great tradition of heroism and honor--waste, fraud, and abuse do occur there. That is no particular criticism of DOD, just the federal government in general. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass this consensus legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore equity in the taxation of political campaign committees. Currently, the tax code treats income in federal political campaign committees the same as corporate income. This allows candidates for congressional office to pay campaign taxes on a graduated rate scale, offering us significant tax benefits. Specifically, we pay a 15 percent tax rate on the first $50,000 of income in our campaign accounts. Income in our accounts between $50,001 and $75,000 is taxed at 25 percent, and income between $75,001 and $10 million is taxed at 34 percent. Only when our campaign accounts boast over $10 million are we subjected to a 35 percent tax rate. Mr. Speaker, each of us in this chamber can attest to the ridiculously high amount of money that we must raise in order to run a formidable campaign for Congress. However, I doubt that many of us actually reach that $10 million threshold and pay a 35 percent tax rate on the money in our campaign accounts. Unfortunately, our colleagues in state legislatures across the country aren't as fortunate. As Texas State Senator Jon Lindsay pointed out to us in the Texas Delegation, every dollar in his campaign account is taxed at a flat 35 percent rate. In fact, only candidates for Congress are able to enjoy this graduated tax schedule. To correct this inequity in our tax code, I am introducing legislation today to amend the Internal Revenue Code and mandate that state political campaign committees are taxed in the same manner as our federal campaign committees. Joining me in this effort to ensure that the tax code treats our state legislators fairly is the entire Democratic wing of the Texas delegation: Representative Chris Bell, Representative Lloyd Doggett, Representative Chet Edwards, Representative Martin Frost, Representative Charles Gonzalez, Representative Ralph Hall, Representative Ruben Hinojosa, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Representative Nick Lampson, Representative Solomon P. Ortiz, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Representative Ciro Rodriguez, Representative Max Sandlin, Representative Charles Stenholm, and Representative Jim Turner. My thanks goes out to each of them for their support, as well as to Senator Lindsay for bringing this matter to our attention. I urge my fellow colleagues to co-sponsor this bill and show their support for the state legislators who work hard representing them back home.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposing H.R. 760 and supporting the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 760, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. This is always an ugly and difficult debate. I am not comfortable with the notion of a pregnancy being terminated when a woman is in the last trimester. I doubt that many people believe a woman who is eight months pregnant should be able to just change her mind and terminate the pregnancy. And I really don't believe that that situation happens. But there are times when late term abortions are necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, or to save the fetus from undue pain and suffering due to irreversible birth defects. In those cases, we should make sure that women have access to safe, appropriate medical procedures. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today is almost identical to a Nebraska law that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court found that the Nebraska law outlaws several procedures, including the safest and most commonly used method for performing pre-viability second trimester abortions. Second, the Court ruled that any ban on methods of abortion must provide an exception for women's health, and also struck down the Nebraska law for failing to include such an exception. H.R. 760 continues to flout the Supreme Court's rulings by continuing to ban certain procedures, and failing to protect the life of the mother. If we are serious about banning truly late-term abortions, than we should do what Texas did. My home state has a law which says that ``No abortion may be performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or prevent a ``substantial risk of serious impairment'' to her physical or mental health or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.'' I supported this law when it passed the State Legislature, and support the Hoyer-Greenwood Amendment being offered today, which provides similar protections for women facing this awful choice. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 760, and instead support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which is similar to common sense Texas law.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the ranking member, my neighbor from Houston. I am really happy that H.R. 1954 is up today. There is no more powerful or honorable way to serve our country than in our Armed Forces. Our military men and women are willing to put their lives on the line to defend freedom and democracy. This type of service is remarkable, particularly for our non-native born. We have legal permanent residents who volunteer, and I have some who were actually drafted in World War II, Korea, and the Vietnam War who deserve their citizenship. We have worked with them to get them through the system with INS to get their citizenship, but this bill just gives us a statute that will make it work. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman and I thank all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing this. We had more than 300,000 Mexican Americans that served in our Armed Forces just in World War II. I have constituents whom I have talked to who served and who were told they would get their citizenship, but they did not. Again, that is our constituent work, working together, but this makes it so much easier. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003. Legal Permanent Residents who volunteer in our U.S. Armed Forces demonstrate the highest level of patriotism and service to our country. They serve, not out of obligation or a sense of duty to their homeland, but because they have embraced everything that America stands for. These individuals are willing to risk their own lives, so that their children and grandchildren can grow up as citizens of this great land. Legal permanent residents have a long history of serving our country and protecting our democracy. More than 300,000 Mexican Americans served in the armed forces during World War II. Most enlisted in the army, and more Hispanics served in combat divisions than any other ethnic group. Of the fourteen Texans awarded the Medal of Honor during WWII, five were Mexican Americans. By the end of the war, seventeen Mexican Americans had earned the Medal of Honor. Five were awarded posthumously. Today, immigrants continue to play an important role in the United States military. As of February 2003, more than 37,000 people in active duty status in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines were non-citizens. During our war with Iraq some of the first fallen soldiers were immigrants who were not naturalized citizens. The least we can do for these individuals--who are willing to serve in ways that many American born individuals aren't--is to recognize them as citizens. The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will allow immigrant service men and women who have risked death--and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice--to come a step closer to fulfilling the American Dream by giving them the opportunity to become a naturalized citizen. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 and grant citizenship to non-citizen immigrants who have honorably served in our military.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, my New York colleague. He and I both came to Congress together. I rise in support of and cosponsor this resolution which proposes an amendment to the Constitution allowing Congress to ban the desecration of our an American flag. You can speak your mind, but do not burn our flag. I am a strong supporter of our first amendment rights to the freedom of expression. However, we do have limits. If I burn my car, protesting the auto maker, I am fine. If I burn a U.S. dollar, it is illegal. For instance, court-made law restricts our freedom of speech as limited by the example given in law school classes about not screaming fire in a theater. That is court-made law that restricts my freedom of speech. What we are trying to do today with this amendment is similar. We want the authority to enact legislation to say that desecration or burning the symbol of our country is unjust, just as yelling fire in a crowded theater is unjust. A hallowed symbol like our flag deserves to be respected and protected as a national treasure. Our flag represents a principle our Nation was founded on and many people have given their lives for. I believe it should be afforded the maximum protection we can give it legislatively. For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my Texas colleague's resolution expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of State Representative Irma Rangel. On March 18, 2003, the Nation lost a leader, Texas lost a hero, and I lost a friend. Irma was a veterans of the Texas House of Representatives, having been first elected in 1976. She was the first Mexican-American woman elected to the House and I was privileged to work and serve with Irma for almost 10 years. She was a vocal proponent of higher education and services for the poor. During her 13 sessions in the House, Rangel spent most of her time and energy on minority and educational issues. She knew her issues, and she knew how to overcome any obstacle. In response to the Hopwood v. Texas decision, which ended affirmative action at all Texas state colleges and universities, Irma sponsored the 10 percent law, which grants admission to State colleges and universities to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Irma grew up in Kingsville. She was the daughter of a man who picked cotton, learned to read and write on his own and later owned two barbershops and several other businesses. She taught for 14 years in schools in Robstown and Alice, in Venezuela and in Menlo Park, CA. In the later 1960s, Irma decided to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming an attorney. She received her law degree from St Mary's University School of Law and was admitted to the Texas Bar in 1969. Irma worked as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Adrian A Spears of San Antonio, who was the chief justice for the Western District of Texas. She also worked as an assistant district attorney in Corpus Christi before returning to her hometown in 1973 to open her own law practice. Irma was inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame in 1994. She also received the Legislator of the Year award from the Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, the Women's Political Caucus' Texas Mexican-American Woman of the Year in 1979, the Unsung Heroines Award in 1991 from the Women's Advocacy Project, the Latina Lawyer of the Year from the Hispanic National Bar Association and the Texas Woman of the Century from the Women's Chamber of Commerce of Texas. She the first Hispanic in the state to receive the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the profession. Irma touched the lives of all those who were fortunate enough to know her. Her absence leaves a big hole in the Texas Legislature and in our hearts. Our thoughts and prayers are with her sister, Herminia Rangel Henderson of Kingsville. I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting from an editorial in the Houston Chronicle shortly after the announcement of her death: ``Irma Rangel was small in stature, but she was always a large force in the Legislature for all those underserved by government and needing help. She was a trailblazer with a strong voice for many in Texas who had been unheard.'' Irma was a trailblazer. The State of Texas is a much better place because of her work. She will be missed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means for allowing me to speak. I rise in support of the effort to give out-of-work Americans more time to find a job before their benefits run out. In December of 2000, my hometown of Houston had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Nation, 3.5 percent. The national average then was 4.2. Today we have unemployment of 6.7 percent in Houston. That is almost double what it was in December of 2000. Texas has lost 112,000 jobs since January of 2001. The country as a whole has lost over 2.5 million jobs since then. Texans want to work, earn a living, and make homes for their families, but no one can survive for long on an unemployment check. People do not lose their jobs just to collect the unemployment check. It is almost laughable. It is only making the best of a terrible situation. One hundred thirty-three thousand Texans are likely to run out of their regular unemployment without finding new work. We need to help these workers, and I am glad we are doing so today. But many will be left out, even as we act today. By the end of this month, there will be an estimated 69,000 Texans who have run out of their extended benefits and remain unemployed in this slow economy, even if we act today. Another 39,000 Texas workers will run out of benefits this summer. None of these numbers take into account the underemployed and the long-term unemployed. Mr. Speaker, while I commend the leadership of both parties in bringing this legislation to the floor today, we need to realize it is only a Band-Aid. Texans and American workers need an extension of unemployment benefits, but they would rather have a job. But workers see Congress exporting good jobs and building up a massive Federal debt that slows down the economy and will have to be paid for by our children. I urge support of the legislation, but it is a half a loaf, at best.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. There is no doubt that sub-Saharan Africa is in the midst of a crisis because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Although only 10 percent of the world's population resides in this area, it is home to more than 70 percent of individuals infected by HIV/AIDS. According to the United Nations, 29.4 million adults and children are infected with the HIV virus in the region, including 3 million children under the age of 15. Although HIV/AIDS has become a treatable disease here in the United States, the public health infrastructure in Africa is ill-equipped to deal with this pandemic. This is evidenced by the fact that, of the 4 million individuals who have reached an advanced stage of the disease, only 50,000 individuals are receiving anti-retroviral treatment. This problem is compounded by the increased spread of comorbidities such as tuberculosis and malaria. Tuberculosis is a leading cause of death for individuals with HIV/AIDS, causing one out of every three deaths for individuals with HIV/AIDS. Incidences of malaria have increased dramatically in recent years due to resistance of the malaria parasite to once effective drugs, and increasing resistance of mosquitoes to insecticides. The World Health Organization estimates between 300 million and 500 million new cases of malaria each year. That is why this legislation is so important. This measure makes a substantial investment in our Nation's efforts to help Africa combat this horrible epidemic. The legislation provides up to $1 billion specifically for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in 2004--a key multilateral mechanism for expanding prevention and treatment. It also allows the U.S. share of total contributions to the Global Fund of up to 33 percent, which solidifies our country's leadership and commitment to eradicating these diseases worldwide. This legislation is carefully crafted, bipartisan, and will be truly effective in our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I applaud the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee for their work on this important legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2003. This common-sense legislation will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes are diagnosed and treated as soon as possible. Diabetes is a serious, debilitating chronic illness that afflicts more than 17 million Americans, including 7 million Medicare beneficiaries. This sometimes silent disease causes many serious complications, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, and lower limb amputation. Unfortunately, more than one-third of people with diabetes won't realize it until they develop one of its deadly complications. Diabetes imposes an enormous financial burden on our health care system. More than 25 percent of the Medicare budget is currently devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. Congress recognized the need to address this problem when it required Medicare coverage of blood-glucose monitors and diabetes education services in the Balanced Budget Act. While this was a positive development in our fight against diabetes, it has done little to help us diagnose and treat the 2.3 million seniors who do not realize they have diabetes, or the 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have pre-diabetes, a condition which, if left untreated, will develop into diabetes. While diabetes is sometimes a silent disease, the risk factors are often obvious. Diabetes is prevalent among individuals who are overweight, aging, and lead a sedentary lifestyle. Other health conditions, such as gestational diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension often lead to diabetes. It is also more common in certain racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, and certain Native Americans. Currently, Medicare does not cover diabetes screening, even if a patient has some of these risk factors. We must strengthen the Medicare program to ensure that individuals get treatment before it is too late. By testing high-risk individuals, we will be able to diagnose and treat individuals earlier on, and subsequently prevent many complications. Studies have shown that people with pre-diabetes can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes by up to 58 percent through lifestyle interventions, including modest weight loss and increased physical activity. That is why I am introducing this legislation, which would require Medicare to cover diabetes screening under Part B. Diagnosing diabetes and pre-diabetes through testing would improve the lives of our Nation's seniors and prevent an increase over the already huge amount of Medicare budget devoted to seniors with diabetes. In addition to improving the health and quality of life for millions of Americans, extending coverage to cover simple testing would save Medicare money in the long run by lowering the incidence of complications. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Texans woke up to stories like this one in today's Houston Chronicle that reports on something that is just ``unbelievable.'' On Wednesday, May 14, one day before the Texas legislative Democrats started returning to Austin, the Texas Department of Public Safety, DPS, ordered all records and photos gathered in the search for them to be destroyed. The order addressed to ``Captains'' states, ``Any notes, correspondence, photos, etc., that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representatives members should be destroyed. No copies kept.'' Who originated this order, this destruction? Yesterday, Secretary Ridge again refused to release a full transcript and tape of the discussions between our DPS and the Department of Homeland Security. What are they hiding? Why is a law enforcement agency in Texas destroying records and a Federal agency refusing to release them? Were there political efforts to involve Federal law enforcement for purely political and partisan reasons? What are these agencies trying to cover up? It does not pass the smell test. While we have new international terrorist threats, a new high alert yesterday, we were looking for Texas Democrats last week. Secretary Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security are needlessly suffering a credibility gap. Mr. Speaker, if there is nothing incriminating or embarrassing on the tapes, then there is nothing to cover up. Release the tapes and all the records. Do not destroy them.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow my Waco, Texas, colleague. I come to the floor today to pay tribute, like my colleagues from Texas, to the very brave men and women of the legislature, those Texas heroes who have put their political lives on the line to ensure that the voting rights of all Texans will remain intact. Again, I want to personally thank my State representatives, and of course there are 53 of them totally, but Rick Noriega, Jessica Farrar, Joe Moreno, Senfronia Thompson, Kevin Bailey, Scott Hochberg, and the other dozens of Texas heroes. Yesterday, these Killer Ds, as they are now called, sent a letter to Texas Speaker Craddick, who I was honored to serve 13 years with in the statehouse. In this letter the members of the legislature said, ``During recent interviews, you indicated you were not willing to negotiate with us regarding the issue of congressional redistricting. You stated you were concerned if you negotiated with us on this issue, we would break a quorum every time we disagreed with you on other important issues of the day, such as our school finance, health care and homeowners insurance. ``We want to clarify this point so that your concern is addressed and no ambiguity remains. We are here because we strongly feel that congressional redistricting should only be taken up every 10 years, unless otherwise ordered to do so by the courts, and that it should not be a priority above other issues facing our State. ``If you are willing to assure us that congressional redistricting will not be taken up by the House during the remainder of this session and the special sessions to come, then we are willing to give you our word, through this letter, that we will not break a quorum on other issues during that same time, even when we disagree.'' And I am sure that there will be plenty of things to disagree about. ``We had no intention to break a quorum on issues following this one, and if you need this guarantee, then this letter provides it. In our system, negotiations and compromise are often the only way to make progress and improve our State. To that end and in that spirit, we respectfully ask you to accept our offer. We hope you will respond as soon as possible today, so we can return right away.'' And, again, this letter was sent yesterday. ``There is a lot of work we can do, and we would like to get that work done.'' During my 20-plus years as a State legislator, 13 as a State House member and 7 as a State Senator in Texas, the thing I treasured the most was the bipartisanship that existed in both our chambers. The problems occurring in the Texas Legislature now are not what is normal. I remember in my 20 years there that we had redistricting bills, and we fought them based on Democrats and Republicans. We had election code bills, and we fought based on Democrat and Republicans. But to have redistricting overshadow the important issues facing the State of Texas, or any State for that matter, I think is frustrating. We see sometimes that Washington politics, the partisan nature of that, has invaded our State legislatures. In all honesty, my friends on the Republican side that I have served with in the Texas Legislature both say we should sit down and talk about problems without it being such a partisan issue. Maybe we can learn something from our legislators here that say, wait a minute, we will fight over redistricting, we will fight over election codes, but when we talk about school finance, insurance reform, health care, or the State budget, you will not see us try to break a quorum in Texas. Today, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram said, and I quote, ``Once upon a time, Tom DeLay killed vermin and varmints and other disreputable critters for a living. Now he's trying to prove that he remembers how, by exterminating any remnants of bipartisanship in the Texas House.'' And continuing the quote, ``Little does DeLay, the U.S. House majority leader, care if he incites a blood feud in Austin; he'd just as soon suck the Democrats dry in his lust to make himself master of the universe. In his insatiable ambition to obliterate the two-party system, DeLay apparently expected the Texas House Dems to roll over on their backs like roaches on Raid and let his water boys roar undisturbed through the Capitol with a new congressional district map. ``When Texas Democratic House members hightailed it north of the Red River, it wasn't to avoid thorny problems still facing the State. It was out of exasperation that neither Mr. DeLay nor Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick would let earnest, hard-working lawmakers of both parties focus on the vital business that the legislature ought to be spending its energy on as this session winds down.'' Mr. Speaker, I served with Mr. DeLay as a State legislator. I served with a lot of Members on the Democratic and Republican side, and I would hope that we could get past this partisan issue and let those folks go back and deal with the problems we have in the State of Texas. Hopefully, we will learn something from them and develop a better bipartisan spirit up here.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be more than happy to cosponsor the Ride-21, and we know, while the STB does have jurisdiction over all rail lines and crossings of these lines, it is true that their ability to enforce safety considerations is unclear. I suspect they choose not to use this authority, if they have it. If in fact they have no authority on grade crossing safety, that needs to be changed immediately, but I realize I will have to come back on the STB authorization bill, and I thank the Chairman for his commitment to address grade crossing safety issues that affect highway agencies in the highway bill.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment not only on my behalf but also the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), from what I understand, to require the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, on my part of the amendment, and the NTSB on the status of any recommendation that the NTSB has made on railroad grade crossing safety. I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure agreeing to discuss the ways we can address this problem further in future legislation. I would also like to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for working with me so well on this amendment. My community in Houston has a serious problem with railroad grade crossings; but it is a national problem, also. There are roughly 260,000 at-grade crossings in the U.S. In 4 years, from 1999 to 2002, over 1,600 people were killed in crossing accidents. Thousands of these at-grade crossings have no protection devices at all, no lights, no barriers. Even in urban areas we have no protection. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).