Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Let me follow up to that line of questioning to my colleagues from Houston and Travis County. I think we all agree that we should not use Federal resources committed to the war on terrorism and to protecting our homeland to find people who have committed no Federal crime and no State crime. There is not a violation of the State penal code, and there is no Federal law violation. Not since Richard Nixon have we seen such an abuse of the law enforcement authority of the Federal Government. As far as for most folks, as a Texan, I am proud of my State representatives for standing up for what they believe is right. I think that is what Texas was all about literally from 1836 to today. I am not the only one who thinks they are doing the right thing. Monday the Houston Chronicle said, ``If they believe their principles are worth fighting for, and they have only one means to fight for them, it's difficult to fault them for it, particularly in a fight that was thrust upon them by Washington-driven partisan politics.'' Today the Houston Chronicle said, ``By thwarting DeLay's secretly drawn Washington redistricting plan, the House Democrats are preserving State prerogatives and doing all Texans a favor.'' Let me repeat that: ``Doing all Texans a favor.'' I think that is so true. That is why here tonight we see so many of us here on the floor at one time. I want to thank my colleague from northeast Texas. We hope you will still be from northeast Texas and the legislature will go about their business to deal with school finance, deal with the $10 billion plus State deficit, and also with insurance reform, because I know our property and casualty insurance are the highest in the country. I thank the gentleman and thank all my colleagues for being here this evening.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow my neighbor and colleague from Texas. I also served in the State House and the State Senate. To compare what is being done by those heroes in Oklahoma now to suicide bombers is outrageous. That is just overboard. This is why we have the problems we have in Texas right now. They do not recognize the comity that has been traditional in the Texas legislature. We used to never fight over anything in a partisan manner except redistricting and election bills. Now we are going to have election and redistricting bills coming every 2 years because of our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. DeLay). This is unprecedented. In 50 years, no State has ever opened redistricting just for partisan purposes until now in Texas and Colorado. The Texas Attorney General, who is a Republican, issued an opinion within the last month that said, no, the legislature does not have to reopen the redistricting process. So we are having to bring it here to the floor of the House simply because my colleague from Houston, Fort Bend County, brought it to the legislature to eliminate 10 Members from Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), was here a few minutes earlier. I was hoping to have a good exchange on either his time or my time on the issue of redistricting. I know a lot of people nationwide, maybe even in Texas, wonder why it is such a big issue. I guess to start with this is the first time in 50 years that we know of, in at least 50 years, that there has been a reopening of redistricting based simply on partisan purposes after the census has come out. Typically, in my experience in the Texas legislature, in 1981 as a State legislator and in 1991 as a State Senator, we did not want restricting bills on the floor of the Senate or the House because it was so divisive. But again, here in 2003, we are getting ready to do it again in Texas. This is setting a standard not only for Texas but for the Nation that I think we should take a step back and look at. I think it is wrong. Again, whether it is Democrats or Republicans doing it, I think it is wrong. It just happens that in Texas it is the Republicans that are reopening this in 2003. We could see the same things happening in States that are controlled by Democrats. I do not think it is good public policy. The problem we have, particularly with what has happened in the State capital, is that there were no public hearings outside our State capital. In 1981 and 1991 in Texas we had redistricting hearings all over the State. I participated in them, particularly in 1991 as a State Senator because I was on the subcommittee of the committee of the whole of the State Senate to hear that testimony outside of the State capital; to hear from people in the neighborhoods who could not go to Austin. That helped to draw a plan, which I think has caused the problem with the one they are considering now and why we are seeing 53 members of the Texas House leave the State to break the quorum. This plan divides communities, it divides an urban area in Harris County, City of Houston, and it spreads it almost throughout the State. It runs the district from Houston to Austin and Houston to east Texas, from Houston to Beaumont, Port Arthur. And maybe if they would have had these public hearings, they would have realized that you do not split those communities. But I am here in support of those 50-plus Democratic members of the Texas House who I consider Texas heroes who have put their political lives on the line to ensure that the rights of all Texans remain intact. I want to personally thank the State representatives in my area, Rick Noriega, Jessica Farrar, Joe Moreno, Senfronia Thompson, and Kevin Bailey, along with many other State representatives, Pete Gallego from west Texas, Richard Raymond from south Texas, and too many that we cannot name here in 5 minutes. Let me talk a little about the tradition of breaking a quorum in a legislative body. In Congress it is something we do not do because our quorum requirements are a majority. But in State legislatures, particularly in Texas, it has been almost a tradition. In 1979, the State Senate broke the quorum because of an election bill that was being considered. In 1981, when I was a House member, we tried to break the quorum after midnight on a Saturday night on a congressional redistricting bill. We were not nearly as organized as these folks because we only slowed it down for about 3 hours and members of the Statehouse were found in closets and air vents and everything else in the State capital. But breaking the quorum is not a new legislative tool. In fact, Abraham Lincoln participated in an attempt to break quorums in 1840 during one of his terms in Illinois' House of Representatives. On one of those days, Democrats wanted a quorum, the Whigs at that time, the predecessors to our Republicans, did not, so the Democrats locked the doors to the House to keep the Members inside the Chamber. Lincoln and two of his fellow Whigs jumped out the window to avoid being locked inside, but their efforts failed, mainly for procedures, because it seemed they had already voted for a motion to adjourn, and in doing so they helped make that quorum which they were trying to break in their hasty departure. Even a former President and a Republican President tried to break a quorum in 1840, so that is a history. These Members of the Texas Legislature, like I said, who are doing this have a tradition in Texas of using every legislative vehicle for their issues and their concerns. Obviously this redistricting map is the most god-awful-looking map I have ever seen, and, again, having been involved for many years as a State legislator. In a letter to the Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, these legislators who are currently living very high in a Holiday Inn and eating at Denny's in Oklahoma said, ``We love the house and take seriously our responsibility to serve our constituents and protect their best interests in the legislature. Our actions fall entirely within house rules. While disappointed that we were forced to break a quorum, our decision was driven by our solemn duty to fight for and protect the rights and interests of those who we were elected to serve in the legislature.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will have 5 minutes and this is a time we might be able to exchange some ideas because I was there in 1981 and 1991, and I would be glad to talk about it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I are friends, and we have worked together on a lot of issues and I thank you for yielding.

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunizations Act of 2003. This important legislation will improve our nation's efforts to immunize all children against vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccines have made dramatic improvements in the lives of children and adults in the last century. Scourges such as polio and small pox have been eradicated thanks to advancements in vaccine research. Childhood vaccinations prevent nine serious infectious diseases. Thanks to immunizations, children no longer have to suffer from the dangers of polio, measles, diptheria, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), rubella (German measels), tetanus, hepatitis-B, or Hib (the most common cause of meningitis). Immunizations are not only sound medicine, they're sound public health policy. More than $21 is saved for every dollar spent on the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine. Almost $30 is saved for every dollar spent on diptheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine. Unfortunately, many children do not have access to these life-saving vaccines. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nationwide vaccination coverage levels decreased from 73.2 percent in 1999 to 72.8 percent in the year 2000. In fact, one third of two-year-old children are under-immunized, and in some cities and urban areas, more than 50 percent of children are not fully immunized. Part of the problem is that health insurance coverage of immunization is spotty at best. According to the Institute of Medicine Report ``Calling the Shots,'' private health insurance immunization coverage varies widely by type of plan as well as by vaccine. Enrollment in a private plan does not guarantee that immunizations will be provided. Although 28 states have enacted legislation that would require private plans to cover immunizations, plans governed by ERISA are not subject to these requirements. The IOM Report recommends that all health insurance plans, including ERISA self-insured plans, should offer first-dollar coverage for childhood vaccines recommended in the harmonized immunization schedule. The Comprehensive Insurance Coverage of Childhood Immunization Act of 2003 would addresses this problem by requiring ERISA governed health plans and plans covered by the Public Health Services Act to cover vaccines for children under 18 years. Vaccines recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule must be covered. The federal government provides this benefit for its own workers, and twenty-eight states have enacted laws to require state-regulated plans to cover vaccines. Unfortunately, ERISA plans do not have to comply with state laws. This legislation will ensure that all children, regardless of the type of insurance they have, will receive life-saving vaccines. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting immunization coverage for all children.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, 53 Texas Democratic legislators exhibited real courage when they refused to participate in an unprecedented redistricting power grab. This is a Texas kind of courage like General Sam Houston, who marshaled his resources to win the Battle of San Jacinto. What Joe Moreno, Rick Noriega, Jessica Farrar, Kevin Bailey, and the rest of these heroes did was stand up to this charade. In a statement delivered from Oklahoma, these Texas heroes said, ``We did not choose our path, Tom DeLay did. We are ready to stand on the House Floor and work day and night to deal with the real issues facing Texas families. At a time when we are told we do not have time to deal with school finance, and when we must still resolve issues like the State budget crisis and insurance reform, the fact that an outrageous partisan power grab sits at the top of the House calendar is unconscionable.'' But not all Texans consider them heroes. Yesterday the Associated Press reported that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was investigating whether or not the FBI and U.S. Marshals could be used to track down and arrest these Texas legislators. We should not use Federal resources committed to the war on terrorism and protecting our homeland. Not since Richard Nixon have we seen such a Federal power grab.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution of my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Human space flight is America's ultimate commitment to scientific exploration and research, and astronauts receive and deserve the most glory because they take the ultimate risk, as we know from the Columbia and the crew of Apollo 1, and the Challenger. They all made the ultimate sacrifice. It is interesting, this resolution, because yesterday I had the opportunity in my district to visit three middle schools, Hambrick Middle School in Aldine ISP, Patrick Henry and Stevenson Middle Schools in the Houston Independent School District, with NASA astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz to encourage our young children to pursue careers in math and science and engineering so they can get great jobs and maybe even work for NASA one day. This is a great experience. I have been able to do that for a number of years with the astronauts in our community, because space exploration is not just the here and now, it is the future. That is why this resolution, I think, is so important because it does look into the future. To get our Space Shuttles back into orbit, we need to know what went wrong and how to fix it. To do this, 30,000 people from local, State, and Federal agencies participated in the search for debris from the Columbia to try to piece together what happened. These efforts resulted in 82,000 pieces weighing 80,000 pounds, when workers covered 1.6 million acres on the ground and in the air. Importantly, many wing pieces, tiles, and the flight data box have been recovered and are being analyzed by NASA engineers right now. Amazingly, with the tremendous efforts of the search parties, five of the nine experiments aboard Columbia have been recovered, including one experiment developing cancer treatment drugs. I would like to close by noting that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is assuming most of the $300 million tab on this important operation; $1.2 million will reimburse Texas for the over-900 Texas National Guard personnel who participated. I urge my colleagues to remember the expense needed for human space flight when we consider NASA's funding later this year. Shuttle maintenance and safety requirements are the highest priority. We need to take the lessons learned from the Columbia recovery search to heart and put them into practice. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass this resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 1, 2003, I regret that I missed the vote for rollcall 158, the vote on final passage for H.R. 1258, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. I would like the record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I think it is misguided and will not produce the economic stimulus that our Nation needs. The lesson we do not need to learn twice is that 2 years ago we enacted a tax cut that was heavily tilted toward the wealthy. It failed to stimulate our economy, and it wiped out every last bit of what budget surplus we had. Mr. Speaker, it is high time we learn from our mistakes. We want to stimulate our economy. We need to get businesses investing in our customers and spending; but in cutting dividend and capital gains taxes, this bill is a long way from doing the job. Mr. Speaker, in my home district, the 29th Congressional District of Texas, 94 percent of my taxpayers bring home less than $100,000. How do these tax cuts affect them? The dividend tax cut will give them a whopping $39 in tax savings. Ninety-four percent will receive $39. That is not incentive. I have a district that consumes, they are people that work and they will spend the money, but let us give it to the folks that actually do that. Some 80 percent of my constituents do not report any capital gains or dividend income on their tax returns. Four out of five of my constituents see no tax relief from these cuts and that is not right.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the recognition as alumni of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I rise in opposition to the legislation which hurts our unemployment assistance programs at the worst possible time. In my hometown in Texas, the unemployment rate is 6.7 percent as of March 2003, and probably is getting worse. Across the country, there are almost 10 million Americans who are officially unemployed and many who are not counted because they have dropped off the rolls. Our unemployment system needs to be stronger, not weaker. We need extended unemployment assistance in low income areas and we need stronger employment and retraining services. The bill here today, H.R. 1261, actually reduces vital services through the old ``block grant and privatize'' game. I heard from my constituents working in the employment services field, and they report that privatization means unresponsive low bid contractors, overworked staff, and cutting corners. Another concern I have is with the requirement that State vocational rehabilitation plants must describe how these services are better coordinated with services under IDEA. I do not mind coordination, but not if it is a cover for funding cuts, and that is what I am concerned about. Under this bill, one-stop centers, which have been a success across the country and also in Houston would have to use more of their Federal funds to pay for infrastructure, not for services. That is a funding cut. With over 3 million workers projected to lose their temporary unemployment assistance from now until the end of the year, without a new job, this bill makes no sense. In my opposition, I would also point out that this reauthorization is opposed by major Hispanic groups, including the National Council of La Raza and the Hispanic Education Coalition, because it fails to help unemployed Hispanics in America to improve their English skills and job prospects. Again, from Texas and the Southwest we have a lot of skilled workers, but if our unemployment services provide English assistance, those people could get work and even better employment. If we want Hispanic folks in the labor market, we need to make a commitment that teaching English as a second language is important. This bill allows States to teach English, but makes no real commitment of resources. Let me just touch on the religious concern I have. We had a job fair in our district last Monday that was coordinated in a Baptist church. We already have religious institutions involved if they want to be. We had many employers, and we had our workforce commission in Texas there that organized it. It was a great example of a religious community coming out and using their facilities, and that is happening right now, and they do not have to have discrimination. It happened to be a Baptist church, but they did not say we would only hire Baptists or let only Baptists come in here and apply for these jobs. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned this bill goes in the wrong direction, and that is why I stand in opposition.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member on our subcommittee, and I rise in support of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. The global devastation caused by these three diseases cannot be understood. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed more than 25 million of the 65 million individuals affected by this disease worldwide. More than 14 million children have been orphaned because of this awaful disease. Tuberculosis, the leading killer of individuals with HIV/AIDS, is an equally serious threat. An estimated 2 billion persons--one third of the world's population--are infected with the bacteria that cause TB, and approximately 2 million persons die each year from TB. This isn't just a problem overseas--after years of decline in the United States, the number of reported TB cases increased 20 percent during 1985-1992. It is particularly problematic in my home State of Texas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we rank 5th in the country in TB case rates. With approximately 264 million persons crossing the United States- Mexico border northbound annually, and 23 percent of all U.S. foreign-born tuberculosis, TB, patients in the United States originating from Mexico, the implications are clear--we have to act on a global level if we are going to win the battle against this killer. That is why I am pleased to support H.R. 1298, important legislation which will provide $3 billion annually for global AIDS, TB and malaria in 2004-2008. 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. This bill also allows the U.S. share of total contributions to the Global Fund of up to 33 percent, which solidifies our 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 urge my colleagues to support this bill, and oppose any efforts to weaken or amend it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the text any California amendment, but opposing the bill. I guess some people are wondering why I have concern about this legislation. Having my first two terms in Congress on the Committee on Education and Workforce, but also for many years as a State legislator in the State Senate in Texas on the Education Committee, it has been frustrating, both in Congress and as a legislator dealing with IDEA and the special-ed programs. For more than a quarter of a century, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, has helped countless disabled youth to complete their education and become contributing members of our society. I see it every day when I go home every weekend. Although this program has succeeded in its efforts to ensure that all American children receive a free and appropriate public education, this Congress, and I am not talking about the majority Republican, I am talking about my first term when we were in the majority, although IDEA was not up for reauthorization, we failed to fully fund IDEA. This is my sixth term, and for five of those terms, as Democrats, we have not been in the majority, so somewhere along the way you are going to have to quit pointing back a decade ago and saying ``it is your all's fault.'' I am sure that almost every Member of Congress, at one point or another, expressed their support for full funding of IDEA. But when it comes down to putting our money where our mouths are, we once again come up short. I know the frustration, because we see it in our schools, we see it on our State level, we see it with our parents, instead of requiring Congress to live up to the promise and fully fund the 40 percent of IDEA costs that we agreed to do originally, this legislation continues to leave the funding subject to the appropriations process. Children with disabilities have a hard enough time making it in this world. We should not make them compete against all the other very worthwhile projects that we have. We should live up to the promise and provide mandatory funding for IDEA. We also should not make it harder for students to receive their education by the provisions in this bill on discipline. I do not want somebody bringing guns or knives or scissors to school to hurt someone, but I also know we should not let minor infractions cause a student to be removed from an educational setting that works for them. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill and support for the amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to learn that this past Monday, Guy V. Lewis was not elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame, despite of his obvious qualifications and contributions to the game. Coach Lewis has had a tremendous impact on the game of basketball throughout our country and in Texas, having coached the University of Houston Cougars for more than 30 years. This university is my alma mater, and the school pride that he instilled during the tenure still lingers today. This exemplary coach led the Cougars to 592 wins, 5 final fours, 14 NCAA title games, and 2 NCAA titles. He also coached his team in the historical 1968 UH vs. UCLA game, which was the first collegiate game ever nationally televised and the largest crowd to watch a collegiate game at that time. I'm proud to say I was there as a University of Houston student. Star players Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Elvin Hayes, all named among the NBA's 50 greatest players of all time, got their start at the University of Houston with Coach Lewis. But despite all of Coach Lewis' accomplishments, he was still over looked for the Hall of Fame. Coach Lewis is only 81 years old, and although he may not have been elected this time around, I want him to know that sports fans everywhere consider him to be a true pioneer of basketball. I know that I speak for all Houstonians when I say that we are very proud of Coach Lewis. I look forward to congratulating him on his election into the Basketball Hall of Fame in the very near future.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6. America needs movement on our energy policy. America needs more production of domestic oil and gas to keep our supply diverse, to keep prices moderate and to keep my State's largest employing industry from running out of gas, literally. Some have said that it is balanced, some will say it is not; but I think this is a good piece of legislation. The bill deals with a great deal of efficiency in title I and production in title II, so I think it is a good compromise on policy of electricity. Many Members have questions on this electricity policy; but the purpose is to apply equal treatment to all regions, with certainty for investors and consumers. The bill also is a good compromise on ethanol and gasoline. The fuels provision is more gradual than last year's version and provides assistance to help manufacturers adjust to the new Federal mandate. Mr. Chairman, this legislation also does a great deal for energy research, and I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), for his work as ranking member on that subcommittee. At the same time we do work on efficiency, conservation and production, we have to invest in new technology. That is a balanced energy policy.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), for yielding me this time and allowing me to speak on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wilson amendment. I want to follow up on what my colleague from Massachusetts said. He is correct, drilling for oil is messy, inexact and unpredictable, but that is what our economy runs on. Maybe 20 or 50 years from now we will be able to have some other energy source, but for the foreseeable future we have to have hydrocarbons. That is why I appreciate the Wilson amendment, because it limits the production and the pipelines and everything else in ANWR to that 2,000 acres. I have had the opportunity a couple of times to go to ANWR on the coastal plain to meet with the residents of Kaktovik. I found out something interesting the last few days when I have asked my colleagues, who went up there with the environmental community. I asked them if they sat down with the native Alaskans, who want production in their community because they want the jobs. And they do not want it spoiled, they do not want oil running out on the ground or hurting their fisheries, but they want it because they know they can do it efficiently and they can do it clean and they also know that that it is good for the economy of our country. My colleagues talk about what we import. Well, it is just strange to me that we close off ANWR, we close off California, and we close off Florida. The only place they want to drill is in Texas, and we are willing to do it to fuel our country.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our committee for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we come from a big State that wants big trucks and big cars, and my concern about the Markey amendment, not that we would not like to have more fuel efficiency, but it actually treats our trucks even harsher than what the National Academy of Sciences says is reasonable. That is why I think we need to have more study on it. Let us make sure we have a plan that works, not only for some parts of our country, but the whole country. The Markey amendment will restrict consumer choice, particularly for folks where I come from, who like to drive trucks. But I do think we need to get better gas mileage; and hearing from some of the speakers in our committee, we are going to get better gas mileage, without the onerous provisions of the Markey amendment. Again, this is much worse than what we considered in the last Congress, and that is why I think it should be voted down tonight.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this wartime supplemental appropriations bill which provides needed resources for our troops who are fighting so valiantly in Iraq. With a price tag of almost $78 billion, this bill represents the largest supplemental bill ever considered by Congress. This bill strikes the necessary balance between providing the Defense Department the flexibility to get resources to our troops in a timely manner and retaining Congress' constitutional authority over the nation's spending. While this bill addresses our military needs abroad during this time of war, we must remember that we're also fighting a war against terrorism on our homefront. To do so effectively requires significant resources for the security of our ports and borders, our counterterrorism initiatives and our first responders on the front lines of this war. Yet only 5 percent of the funding in this bill is dedicated to homeland security. Mr. Chairman, throughout this country, our states and localities are strapped for cash. They simply do not have the resources to take on the financial burden of homeland security. Without Federal help, there is no way we can implement a coordinated and comprehensive effort to defend our cities and states from attack. Without doubt, the domestic and military needs of this country are great. And in times of need, the American people have a proud history of banding together and sacrificing for the betterment of the nation as a whole It is in this tradition of shared sacrifice that we must put the needs of the country ahead of any personal desire for a tax cut. Our increasing budget deficits alone show that we can't afford it. And there's little evidence to suggest that this second tax cut would do any better than the first at stimulating the economy. As we consider this supplemental bill and other budget and tax measures, I urge my colleagues to remember the true needs of this nation by providing adequate funding for homeland security and abandoning this fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal that will inevitably be paid for on the backs of future generations.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I do not know about a $3 bill, but maybe the Committee on Ways and Means could get one printed. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under our House rules that we are required to use the word ``promptly'' instead of ``forthwith'' because we now have had a budget resolution. I would ask, is that correct?

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.