Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is not that I necessarily disagree with what my Republican colleagues want to do in 2011 and for the decade after that, but let me remind my colleagues, we are in the year 2002. We do not need to fight this battle now. Why do we not wait until 2009 or 2010 so we can see what is happening with our budget then? But what we are seeing is that they would rather fight a battle today for something that may happen 10 years from now instead of dealing with the problems we have today. We are in a war on terrorism. Our budget deficits are exploding for the next 8 years, as we would expect. Yet, they want to take time on the floor to say we want to make sure you can tax-plan for 10 years from now. I wish I could tax-plan for next year or the year after. The battle should be on how we are going to deal with the deficit right now; how we are going to deal with the tax cut that was passed last year before September 11; how September 11 and the increase that all of us support to fight the war on terrorism, how we are going to deal with an economy that did not come back or has not come back like some of us wanted it to or hoped it would do, or whatever we could do, maybe some other tax cuts, but they need to be more immediate, than to argue today over something that is going to happen 10 years from now. That is why I think it is so ludicrous to be up here saying we are going to take care of you in 2011 but, by the way, for the next 9 years, we are going to have deficits out of the gazoo. The Democratic substitute, all it says, it has the same things that the Republicans do for 10 years from now, again, which is somewhat silly, but it says, okay, we will do this 10 years from now, but we are going to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are safeguarded. That is all it says. That is why it seems we ought to as a House agree we want to take care of our seniors. There are those of us who 10 years from now may be eligible for Social Security, but I know a lot of my constituents will be, and I want to make sure that they have Social Security and Medicare there instead of having the trust fund continue to be drained away by excessive deficits that we expect. Now, I hope it does not happen in the next 3 or 4 years, but unless we address today and not fight battles that are 9 years away, we will not address it and we will have the budget deficits as far as the eye can see, and that is for the next 9 years, Mr. Speaker. That is why the Democratic substitute is very simple. We will give you the tax cut. You can tax-plan for 10 years from now if you can, but we are going to make sure that if it impacts Social Security and Medicare, that it does not touch it, that the trust funds will be there. That is why I think it is so strange that we are having a battle for 10 years from now. Even if we are doing it in 2013 to 2022, if the baby boomers are aging into Medicare and Social Security, this legislation could cost $330 billion. Where are we going to get that if we have a $250 billion deficit for this year and for as far as the eye can see? I just think, again, we are fighting a battle for political purposes and not really dealing with the reality at hand, with the war on terrorism or an economy that is not in good shape. We need to do something today instead of 10 years from now.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last year this Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in history. That was during the spring. What we have seen, though, is at that time they said, ``We have surpluses projected. We can afford it.'' Well, first came the economic downturn, and then came September 11, and here we are a year later, the surpluses have evaporated, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting deficits as far as the eye can see, and we are at the bottom of the hole, but now we keep digging it with this bill today. But it seems people just do not realize that. If we permanently repeal the estate tax, it will cost as much as $1 trillion over 10 years. To make matters worse, most of the $1 trillion will go only to the estates of one-half percent of all estates. So we are providing this tax cut not to people who are no longer with us, but to their estates. It seems to me it would be better to provide a tax cut to two-member working families out there that would be permanent, instead of worrying about the estate, which only affects a very small percentage of the people in the country. Why are we talking about passing a tax cut that will benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans when we have deficits as far as the eye can see? What happened to our fiscal responsibility? We are already tapping the Social Security trust fund surplus every year for the next 10 years, and my colleagues will say, oh, we are using it for defense and the anti-terrorism war. Well, that is just not true. It is because of the tax cuts that were passed last year and because now we are going to try to make them permanent. Again our fiscal responsibility is out the window. Unless we address the problem of revenue shortfalls, that invasion by the tax cut of the Social Security trust fund will get deeper and longer lasting. We should be putting our financial house in order and stopping the raid on Social Security, but here we are taking up another piece of legislation that further threatens the solvency of the Social Security program and the economic health of our Nation. That is so true. We have a projected $250 billion deficit next year. It is going to grow for the next 10 years. Yet we are providing a permanent tax cut? Where is the reason on this?

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an exciting new technology. Local television broadcasters across the country are undertaking their biggest advancement in years: the transition to digital television. These stations aim to provide new services to their viewers, our constituents. Digital TV opens the door to new possibilities like High Definition TV, interactive television, and expanded programming options and choices. The stations in Houston that serve my district are already transmitting digital signals. I am proud of my hometown broadcasters: the CBS affiliate KHOU, which is owned by the Texas based Belo Corporation; KPRC, owned by Post-Newsweek; KTRK, owned by ABC; KRIV and KTXH owned by FOX; KUHT; and my local PBS station. These local broadcasters are leading the charge into the future. These TV stations are small businesses like any other. They have made substantial investments in new transmitting facilities, new production equipment, and in some cases new broadcast towers. Collectively, the broadcast industry has invested over a billion dollars in the future of free, over-the-air digital television. The digital transition will accelerate significantly as more television sets with digital tuners are manufactured. Like any technology, digital television sets started out as expensive, but are rapidly becoming more affordable. The prices for digital television sets have dropped fifty percent in the last two years and continue dropping today. I look forward to a day when digital television tuners are so widespread that all consumers can afford to make the conversion and receive their local stations' free digital signals. The transition to digital television will be, undoubtedly, a multi- step process. In the meantime, I am proud of my hometown stations for leading the way. Let me offer my thanks and congratulations to them for flipping the digital switch.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the pressing need to create a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. For almost a decade, Congress has been talking about a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and every time this issue comes up, excuses are made that it is just too expensive and we cannot afford it. Meanwhile, seniors are struggling every day to find ways to afford their life-saving medicines. They pay some of the highest prices in the world for their prescriptions; but because Medicare lacks a prescription drug benefit, 40 percent of the seniors pay for their prescriptions entirely out of pocket. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting surpluses well into the next decade. We had the opportunity to do something about this. But instead of using the surpluses to create a Medicare drug benefit, we passed a bloated tax cut that eroded these surpluses and sent us back into an era of deficit spending. This week we are going to take another vote to further extend these tax cuts. We have deficits as far as the eye can see, but the majority wants to dig that hole even deeper and pass tax cuts that will cost almost $1 trillion over 10 years and will benefit less than 2 percent of the American people. Yet we tell seniors we cannot afford a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

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

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not object; but I would ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of our full committee, to give an explanation of the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Continuing my reservation of objection, Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman has been a long-time advocate for increasing funding for juvenile diabetes, and he has been recognized many times by the health care industry. I think all of us have been touched by someone with diabetes. Throughout my life, I have met many courageous people who have struggled with this disease every day. I want to especially mention the Balthazars. They are not only constituents, but live in my hometown of Houston. They had come to a town hall meeting a couple of years ago to tell me about the struggle their family faces with their son, Larry, who has juvenile diabetes. Larry Balthazar was diagnosed with this horrible disease when he was 2 years old. He has no memory of life without insulin shots, blood glucose tests, hypoglycemia, or the fear of dreaded complications. He has never had the chance to live a carefree life that every child deserves. Instead, he is tied to a regimen of painful shots, finger pricks, and a strictly controlled diet, which is not a way to spend a childhood. Unfortunately, Larry's childhood is no different than that of 1 million other Americans with juvenile diabetes. This serious disease restricts the ability of these people and their families to live normal lives. Instead, they are forced to give themselves multiple insulin injections each day, test their blood sugar frequently, and be prepared for the high and low blood sugars that ravage their bodies. If their blood sugar is too high, they face the possibility of blindness, heart disease, stroke, nerve damage, kidney failure, and lower-limb amputation. With low blood sugar, people with diabetes suffer disease, dizziness, hunger, seizure, coma and even death. This disease forces its victims into a careful balancing act that is almost impossible to achieve. While this is all very sobering, we have never been closer to finding a cure for this horrible disease. Research in islet cell transplantation has shown great potential for individuals with diabetes and has already freed many people with diabetes from their syringes and their glucose meters. Stem cell research also holds incredible promise for recreating these cells that are destroyed by diabetes. Further advancement in this field almost certainly could cure juvenile diabetes forever. But like any other disease, these advancements will never be realized unless we invest the resources necessary to find a cure. That is why myself and 127 other Members of the House have cosponsored and introduced H. Con. Res. 36, the important resolution to fully fund diabetes research, and urge this Congress to invest the amount recommended by the Diabetes Research Working Group. The DRWG was appointed by the Congress in 1998 to develop a comprehensive plan for diabetes research. The findings of this group were very compelling. They recommended several different approaches to finding a cure and improving treatments for diabetes. But these recommendations are meaningless if they are not backed up by an increase in funding. While there has been some increases in diabetes funding at the NIH, much more needs to be done. This year, diabetes will receive $769 million in funding at the NIH--only slightly more than half the amount recommended by the DRWG. If we are serious about finding a cure for this serious disease, then we must make the necessary investment to find a cure. H. Con. Res. 36 with 127 co-sponsors expresses the sense of Congress that federal funding for diabetes research should be increased in accordance with the recommendations of the Diabetes Research Working Group. By passing this resolution on the floor today, we are reaffirming our commitment to win the battle against juvenile diabetes. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the cochair of the Diabetes Caucus. (Ms. DeGETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this is interesting, because to follow my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and then for him to have followed the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I have a very urban district in Houston, but whether it is central Texas with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) or West Texas with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), we are concerned about the procedure that is happening today, because every one of us have voted for funding for the war on terrorism literally since September 11. But the procedure that my Republican colleagues have put us in today in the majority is that what happened yesterday with the rule to the supplemental began to raid the Social Security trust fund. This is a dangerous thing that will return us to the days of deficit spending. Mr. Chairman, my first term in Congress was 1993-1994, when our debt, being hidden by Social Security every year, increased $250 billion. It is estimated that now our national debt not hidden by Social Security will be $300 billion every year more. So what we are seeing is we are increasing the national charge card. I have to admit, I am concerned, because whenever we increase our debt limit, like we would on our Visa cards, then sometimes we do at least pay the minimum balances. But we are not even paying the minimum balances. We are just increasing the debt. My colleagues on the Republican side for my first term when they were in the minority talked to us so much about how bad it was, that we are taxing the future, we are taxing our grandchildren and great- grandchildren. Well, we are doing it today with this and the shoe is on their foot now. They are the ones doing that. It is not for the war on terrorism. It is not for the war on terrorism. I would stand here today and vote to increase the debt ceiling on a clean vote, like I think a majority of the Democratic Caucus would, if you said we need to increase the debt ceiling and devote that to the war on terrorism, devote that to the military that we need, to investigations we need to make sure our country is safe. That is not the case. That is not the case. That is what is so frustrating. They are wrapping themselves up in the war on terrorism, yet they will not realize that last year when the economy was taking a downturn, we did not know how much, last year before September 11, we voted one of the biggest tax cuts in history. It took effect last year and will take effect over the next 10 years. Yet they want to make it even permanent after that. That is what is causing this debt ceiling to have to be increased. It is not the war on terrorism. The national debt again will be $300 billion more than it was at the first of this year. Now, I am just shocked, as a Democrat, who is supposed to be a big spender, to see what my Republican colleagues have done in the years they have been in the majority. This increase cannot be explained by the war against terrorism or even a downturn in the economy. The cost of the war and the downturn in the economy roughly are $800 billion in the increase in the projected debt. Yet this leaves nearly $1.9 trillion in more debt that is not accounted for. The only thing I can say is it is either increased domestic spending, some of which I support, or most of it is the tax cut voted on prior to September 11. The new debt seriously inhibits our ability to provide a prescription drug benefit, to shore up our Social Security programs or invest in a number of other domestic priorities that we need to have. Instead of sneaking around to increase the debt ceiling, we should be discussing how we got here and what we need to do to avoid getting our Nation further in debt. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this back-door effort in mortgaging our children's future and find a meaningful solution to our budget woes. Lots of ways could correct this, but not to continue to charge up our national credit card. We can do what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) suggested, a unanimous consent request that we go back to the original bill and take away that rule vote last night that hid the increase in the national debt. Or we could do an up-and-down vote on increasing the national debt ceiling with devoting that increase to the war on terrorism to make sure our country is safe. Again, I think we could go back to what we saw after September 11, a huge bipartisan majority saying yes, we want to defend our country, we want to defend our community, we want to defend those men and women in Afghanistan and literally all over the world now. We wanted to do that. We wanted to do it based on a tax cut last year passed prior to September 11. That is what is so frustrating. That is why you are going to see Members of the Democratic Caucus from all walks of the party, from every philosophical point of view, who want to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, for the war on terrorism, to protect our communities, but that is not what my Republican colleagues are allowing us to do.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Bioterrorism Conference Report. I commend our chairman and ranking member, Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Dingell, for their hard work in developing this consensus legislation. This bill represents the kind of common-sense, worthwhile policy that can be produced when the two parties work together. This bill includes a number of important provisions that will go a long way to improve our nation's ability to prevent and respond to a bioterrorist attack. With the formula grants in this bill, states will be able to better develop their public health infrastructure, so that they can recognize and contain bioterrist outbreaks. The legislation creates a stockpile of drugs and vaccines, so we are able to quickly treat individuals who are affected. And it improves food safety inspection at our nation's borders to protect our food supply and makes sure that our water supply is not vulnerable to terrorist attack. This legislation also reauthorizes and improves upon the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which ensures that life-saving medications make it through the FDA approval process as quickly as possible. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, all we need to do is just say no to privatization of Social Security. When it comes to reforming Social Security, our Republican majority thinks they can fool the American people. They think that if they avoid the words like ``privatization'' that they will be able to mask the true nature of their Social Security reform proposal. In Texas we have a saying, ``You can put lipstick and earrings on a hog and call it Monique, but it's still a pig.'' No matter how much our Republican friends want to dress up their proposal to disguise its details, it is still privatization. Privatization schemes, let us just be honest and call them what they are, would cut benefits, increase administrative costs and place the financial health of the Social Security program in jeopardy, but suddenly, in an election year, my colleagues changed their tune. They will do anything, say anything, to hide their true agenda. This is a cynical ploy, and the American people will see through it. Let us call privatization what it is, and a pig, a pig.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Like Yogi Berra said, ``It is deja vu all over again.'' The Republican majority is trying to convince the American people that they want to do something to provide prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors, but it is the same proposal that went nowhere last year. It is nothing but an election year proposal that will provide very little benefit to most seniors. This tiered proposal, leveled proposal, treats some seniors differently than others, despite the fact that all seniors have paid into the program and deserve a meaningful prescription drug benefit. I am in favor of providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors. If this proposal is going to work, we need a benefit that is good for all seniors, not just a few. Unfortunately, the Republican plan will not help middle income seniors who have only moderate drug costs. Their plan is unworkable. Even the insurance industry says that insurance will not go for it. So what we have here is a plan that the seniors will not like, the insurance companies will not like, and the public will be able to see through. And even members of my Republican colleagues' party have mentioned that this bill is not a good proposal. Let us stop playing games with seniors' lives. It is time to provide a meaningful, generous benefit that actually does something to address the prescription drug problem.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support and proud cosponsor of H. Res. 392. Israel is under a state of siege from terrorist forces in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian offices in Ramallah harbored the accused assassins of an Israeli cabinet minister. The Palestinian authority proudly pays for posters to put up in their cities glorifying these terrorist activities; they call them martyrs. The way to peace in a Palestinian state is not through terror. If the Arab League wants to advance the peace process, they need to tell their membership to stop financing terrorism against Israel and stop demonizing the Jewish people. The Arab League needs to stop supporting terrorist organizations, stop funding suicide bombers on the West Bank and Gaza, and stop paying rewards for the attacks. Everybody speaks about peace in front of the cameras, but continues to secretly fund terrorist organizations against Israel. I support Israel's right to defend their citizens and support their operations to destroy the terrorist infrastructure which has been created by the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arafat could stop the violence if he restrained his forces and used his powers for construction instead of destruction. Israel only went on the offensive as a reflexive action to stop escalating terrorist attacks. If there are no more attacks, Israel is more than willing to restart the peace process. This resolution needs to be passed.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I commend to your attention an Editorial written by Helen Thomas regarding the state of the Social Security Trust Fund. I request that it be submitted for the Record. Since its creation in 1935, Social Security has helped lift countless seniors out of poverty. This program is a solemn promise that our government will provide a meaningful retirement to all the individuals who work their entire lives to make this country great. As Ms. Thomas points out, the Social Security Board of Trustees contends that the current system's funds will not be depleted until 2041. That's forty years from now. While I do not pretend that the pending retirement of the baby-boom generation will put on the strain on the system, I agree with Mrs. Thomas' assessment that we certainly have time to consider this problem and craft solutions. Nonetheless, it seems like some in the Congress and the Administration would like to ram through a privatization scheme that could endanger the program and would threaten the safety-net that is the foundation of our social security program. They scare seniors by telling them about long-term shortfalls that might never materialize. Mr. Speaker, I think our seniors are smarter than that, and recognize that these naysayers have a larger agenda--privatizing this system. I strongly oppose any efforts to privatize the system, and believe that we can make minor changes that will sustain Social Security without jeopardizing our economy or the program. We need to make sure Social Security continues to provide the retirement safety net not only for our parent's generation, but also for our generation and our children's generation. [Houston Chronicle, Apr. 10, 2002] Social Security Fine; Why Rush To Fix It? (By Helen Thomas) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the Social Security fund ain't broke. In fact, it will be solvent until 2041, three years later than projected last year, according to a new report from the Social Security Board of Trustees. The March 26 report says the system could run smoothly for nearly four decades with no cuts in benefits and no other changes. So what is all this talk about a crisis? President Bush and his cohorts, obsessed with trying to privatize the system, have painted it in doomsday terms. But they are not fooling grass-roots consumers, who increasingly want to keep the program out of the hands of Wall Street brokers. The system's 46 million beneficiaries received about $432 billion in 2001, and its trust funds totaled $602 billion. But it seems this administration just can't stand the good news. Officials now insist there is a need to assure its solvency for 75 years. I ask you, who knows what tomorrow will bring? The system's improved health could be extended even longer if the nation continues to have a strong economy and higher productivity. Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart admitted last month that the report's projections ``suggest that we have not lost ground in the past year. However, the report still projects that, once the trust funds are exhausted, payroll tax revenues will be sufficient to meet only 73 percent of Social Security benefit obligations under current law. And projections for the late 21st century paint an even bleaker picture.'' Is anyone dissatisfied at the moment with planning 40 years ahead? In that time, I'm sure, Americans will be resourceful enough to protect this great program, born in 1935 in the New Deal era, that is dedicated to helping the elderly, the disabled and dependent children. Under Bush's partial privatization scheme, recipients would be allowed to invest some of their payroll tax money in securities instead of putting it in the Social Security fund. It would be ``a fundamental change in the way this program has always worked . . . (from) a guaranteed safety net program to one that would be put at risk in the stock market or bond market.'' In setting up his Social Security commission to develop a privatization plan, Bush chose former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., to co-chair the panel. But their best-laid plans went awry when reality set in. First came the roller-coaster stock market, and then came more devastating news--the Enron scandal. Some 4,000 Enron workers had invested heavily in the company's stock, and many lost their life savings. But many executives did not lose. They sold their stock before the company came under federal investigation last fall. The disillusionment brought into question the reliability of investing in stocks and bonds and caused Bush and other supporters to pause. But only temporarily, it seems. There are still conservatives who remain ideologically opposed to the Social Security program and would like to abolish it. However, if the administration continues to pursue its plan, it may pay a big political price. A number of anti-privatization coalitions are popping up. One is US Action, a Washington-based grass-roots organization that claims 3 million members and 33 affiliates in 23 states. With all the grass-roots pressure and the Enron fallout, I think it would be foolhardy of any lawmaker who wants to survive at the polls in November to propose a radical change in the system. Bush, of course, is a multi-millionaire. So he won't have to depend on a Social Security check when he leaves the White House. Nor will Moynihan, who collects a number of monthly pension checks from his service in top administration Jobs and from his years on Capitol Hill. At one point during Bush's campaign for the presidency, he showed that he did not even know that Social Security is a federal program, Well, he has learned a lot about it since then. But he still has more to learn--that it's popular, it works and it ain't broke.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time to address the House. I have been a cosponsor on this bill with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) since 1997, when he first came to Washington, who has much expertise, with all his years with the Border Patrol and INS, and in dealing with the issue in my own district. In Houston, it can take up to 3\1/2\ years to process green card applications. Immigrants must often wait long hours under extreme weather conditions before even setting foot inside the INS office. And for most immigrants, this is not the only time they will go. The separation of law enforcement from the naturalization process is so needed. I am glad that my colleague brought my attention to that in 1997 and that it is in the bill we are seeing today. We must replace the INS and ensure all Americans their government is competent enough to distinguish between immigrants who are hard working and those who want to terrorize our citizens. This bill will replace the INS with an Agency for Immigration Affairs in the Department of Justice, headed by an Associate Attorney General for immigration affairs. The two bureaus under this agency would have different responses, and that is what we need. And I want to thank the Chair of the Judiciary and the committee for bringing this bill out.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 2002, Harris County Elections Administrator Tony Sirvello will retire after overseeing the local electoral process for more than two decades. Tony has been a constant in the elections office for a majority of my political career, and I want to congratulate him on a job well done. Tony has been a life-long resident of Houston. He graduated from St. Thomas High School and then earned a bachelor's degree and a law degree from the University of Houston. He also served in the United States Army and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal. In June 1973, he begin to work for Harris County, and in October 1980, he was promoted to the position of Supervisor of Elections. In a time in our nation's history when more and more Americans do not vote, Tony has taken significant steps to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to vote. He has had a distinguished career. He has attended every single Texas Secretary of State Seminar for Election Officials since the very first one. He is a member of the Federal Elections Commission Advisory Panel on Election Administration. He is a member of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers. He helped organize South African absentee voting in Houston. He helped organize Russian absentee voting in Houston. And, he was the first election official in the United States to email a ballot to a NASA Astronaut on the space station. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring and congratulating Tony J. Sirvello on his retirement. Tony, we wish you well.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Life Insurance Employee Notification Act or the LIEN Act for short. As a strong supporter of the American worker, I am here on the floor introducing legislation to stop American companies from profiting in the deaths of their employees. A recent article in the Houston Chronicle brought to my attention a business practice involving employers purchasing secret life insurance policies on their employees without their knowledge or consent. These policies are known as Corporate-owned Life Insurance or COLI. Unfortunately, they also have another name, ``dead peasant policies.'' They are called dead peasant policies because these Corporate-owned Life Insurance policies are usually purchased for the rank-and file employees and not the CEO, CFO, or the Board of Directors. Executive Insurance is the norm in corporate America and I have no problem with that because it is disclosed to investors and the individual. Dead peasant policies, on the other hand, are not disclosed to the low-level employee because he or she is not eligible to collect the death benefit. This failure to notify the ownership of the death benefit is the crux of the problem. American companies are purchasing secret life insurance on the chanced that one of their employees dies and they can collect the six figure death benefit. These companies have created a death derivative. In a large company with thousands of employees, economic modeling can be done to predict how many policies will be collected on in a given year. This blood money can be used for whatever the company wants, but most importantly it is rarely used to compensate the families of the dead employee. While I find the use of life insurance in this manner offensive, I understand it is not illegal and is in fact condoned in many states; Texas is not one of them. The LIEN Act is a sunshine bill that forces companies to disclose to the employee that a dead peasant policy has been purchased in their name. In addition, it requires the company to provide the name of the insurer, the benefit amount, and under whose name the policy is in. I do not want to ban this practice, but simply provide workers with more information about what the employer is doing on their behalf. As we saw with Enron, corporations often do not provide pertinent financial information to their employees. I am frankly disgusted with this whole practice and am amazed that this all began as a simple tax dodge worth billions of dollars. In the mid 1990s, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the classification of these policies as a legitimate business expense for the purpose of reducing their federal tax obligation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation to protect all hard working Americans from dead peasant insurance.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. While serving his country in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Brian Thomas Craig, from my hometown of Houston, was killed on Monday, April 15, 2002, in a field near the former compound of the Taliban leader. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life of a truly brave American. Brian Craig was twenty-seven years old and had spent the majority of his adult life in service to our nation. He joined the Army in 1993, shortly after graduating from Klein Forest High School, where he was an excellent student. Yesterday, the Houston Chronicle reported on Brian's truly patriotic life. I would like to share the following excerpt: A straight-A student with college potential, Craig wanted to join the Army first. A high school social studies teacher. Scott Boyer, who recently died, instilled a sense of patriotism in Craig as they studied the Gulf War. ``We knew from his junior year that he would enlist after graduation,'' said Joe Georgiana, a retired marketing teacher from Craig's high school. ``It was always his objective. He never wavered.'' Brian is survived by his parents, Pastor Arthur and Barbara Craig, a brother, Kevin Craig and a sister, Elaine Hurtado. The United States Army goes out every day to make a difference and Brian Thomas Craig certainly did--some days in a small way, some days in a big way, and on April 15, 2002, at the cost of his life. One cannot ask more from our brave military personnel. The loss of any life is a tragic event. The Book of John, Chapter 15, verse 13 states: ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' I believe this message has a special meaning today and forever. As a father, I cannot begin to understand the pain and heartache felt by the Craig family. I can only say that his death was not in vain, and we all join together to pray for them. Staff Sgt. Brian Thomas Craig's dedication and devotion to the citizens of our nation serves as a model for those who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and the ideals we hold dear. It has been said that the ultimate measure of a person's life is the extent to which they made the world a better place. If this is the measure of worth in life, a grateful nation can attest to the success of the life that Staff Sgt. Brian Thomas Craig led. Brian will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, a fitting tribute, and a memorial service is planned for Friday at 2:00 p.m. at the First Baptist Church in Houston. I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in expressing our consolences to the Brian Craig family. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to follow the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, because I guess since this week was April 15, my colleagues have to show again that they are against tax increases. We voted for one last year. Now let us show we are against them, and we are going to vote against one 8 years from now. It just does not make sense. Last year, when Congress passed the tax cut, a lot of us voiced concerns that we were cutting and not leaving enough room for emergencies. Well, in the post-September 11 environment, that argument has even more weight now. It is more important, with the war on terrorism, it is critical that we realize our defense responsibilities. We must continue to pay for the important domestic responsibilities we have, education, prescription drugs for seniors, and not go deeper into deficit spending. All people ask is that the Federal Government live like our families. If our families have to pay for the security of their home, for their prescriptions for their parents, for the education of their children, why would they go to their employer and say, we need a tax cut; we need a pay cut 8 years from now? It does not make economic sense, it only makes political sense during this week. I am just amazed that my Republican colleagues would try and pull this over the eyes of Americans.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, as I am not on either the Committee on Ways and Means or the Committee on Education and the Workforce, but when Enron started to collapse, many people in Houston saw their life savings evaporate before their eyes. My constituents' hands were tied because Enron executives prevented them from touching the 401(k)s, even though these same executives were able to unload their stock by other means as it continued to spiral down. Innocent employees and investors lost all their investments while the CEO and executives cut their losses with their stock losses and deferred compensation. Congress should be able to stand up to these folks who take free enterprise and abuse it, these corporate insiders who took advantage of their employees' trust. This legislation, as I look at it, and I know that we have two different committees working on it, does little to help the average rank-and-file worker who could do nothing to prevent what was happening at Enron. This reminds me of a saying from Texas that we can put earrings and lipstick on a pig and call her Monique, but it is still a pig. Even with earrings and lipstick, this bill does not do much to prevent future Enrons. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water, and I agree that we need to continue the efforts for stock options and ESOPs; but somehow we have to send the message by legislation that we will not have what has happened at Enron ever happen again. The President said he wanted the CEOs treated the same as the workers. The Democratic substitute does that. It makes sure that executives play on the same field as their workers and investors. If employees are prohibited from selling their stock, executives should be, too, without any special dealings or deferred-compensation ways that they can get to their stock, and that is what the Republican bill that we have today does not do. The majority bill, even with the earrings and lipstick, is still no beauty.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, whatever this Congress does, we have to respect funding for national security. But while protecting ourselves from foreign enemies, we should fund programs that protect seniors and children, too. This budget fails to protect children or senior citizens. In fact, according to this chart, this budget spends the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus for the next 10 years. For the next 3 years, we go into deficit spending over and above the surpluses in Medicare and Social Security. More than 40 million Americans are without health insurance, and yet there is nothing in this budget that does anything for them. There is no prescription drug benefit for seniors. The expectation of the cost is $750 billion. This budget does not even make a down payment on that. Many States like Texas have trouble funding its SCHIP program which provides health care for children. There is nothing in this budget that allows the $3 billion for our States to have insurance for our children. To cap this off, the government is backing deficit spending for 3 years, and for the next 10 with Medicare and Social Security, as Members can see from this chart.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. This is the first time I have been able to say that on the floor, and maybe the fourth time is the charm. The need is urgent to help our displaced workers and encourage investment through depreciation. This bill extends unemployment insurance benefits for workers who have used their benefits up without yet finding a job. In my own area in Houston, our laid-off workers are a result of September 11, the airline employees and the travel industry, and from the Enron situation. They will benefit from this. Since September 21, about 2 million families have run out of unemployment benefits, 81,000 per week. That will help us nationwide. We should have done this months ago in a bipartisan manner, but the Republican leadership insisted three times before that the tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations be included. In previous recessions, we have always passed an unemployment extension, but this time again we held it hostage, and now I am glad we are finally going to see it happen. The concern I have, though, is ultimately we went from last year saving Social Security first to making it last. It looks like we have put tax cuts first. Again I am glad the committee has come up with this bill. It is a good compromise. Hopefully, the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor tonight to talk about a special day that happened last Saturday in Texas. March 2, 2002, marked the 167th birthday of the Republic of Texas. Long ago on that date, in 1836, 54 delegates representing settlements across Texas gathered for the Constitutional Convention of 1836 in the small Village of Washington-on-the-Brazos. From the beginning, it was an event marked by haste and urgency. The army forces of Mexico under General Santa Anna were closing in on the defenders in the Alamo. On March 2nd, the day after the opening of the convention, the delegates declared the independence of Texas from Mexico. Within days of that announcement, on March 6th, the Alamo would fall. This was the first in a chain of defeats for the small Texas Army which would, nevertheless, emerge victorious at the battle of San Jacinto, 6 weeks later, on April 21. Mr. Speaker, what those brave Texans were fighting for is the same thing we are fighting for today. Up to the point when they gathered at Washington-on-the-Brazos, it was simply to restore the Mexican Republic and the constitution of 1824, which had been suspended by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. This constitution had granted all citizens and subjects of Mexico basic human rights. On the night of March 1, however, a group of five men stayed up late at night drafting the document that would be approved the next day by the full convention. This document, which echoed the lines of its American counterpart, was the Texas Declaration of Independence. It started off in much the same way as ours, with the words, ``When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people.'' It spoke of the numerous injustices inflicted upon the settlers of the state then known as Coahuila y Tejas: the elimination of the state's legislative body; the denial of religious freedom; the elimination of civil justice system; and the confiscation of firearms, this last one being the most intolerable, particularly among Texans. Finally, it stated that, because the injustices of Santa Anna's government, Texans were severing their connection with the Mexican nation and declaring themselves a free, sovereign and independent republic, fully invested with all the rights and attributes that belonged to independent nations and a declaration that they ``fiercely and confidently'' committed their decision to ``the Supreme Arbiter of the destiny of nations.'' Over the next 2 weeks, a constitution was drafted and an interim government was formed, despite daily reports from the front detailing the collapse of the Alamo and the subsequent advance of the Mexican army through Texas. On March 17, 1836, the government was forced to flee Washington-on- the-Brazos on the news of the approach of Santa Anna. Just over a month later, independence was secured in the form of a victory over that same army by General Sam Houston, a delegate at that very convention, and his courageous fighters at the battle of San Jacinto. Mr. Speaker, let me remind folks from my neighboring State of Tennessee that Sam Houston, along with another Texas hero, Davy Crockett, served in this Congress representing the State of Tennessee. In fact, I have told my colleagues from Tennessee that sometimes the best of Tennessee immigrated to Texas in the 1830s. From that point on, Texas was firmly established in the community of nations, and for 10 years she stood as an independent nation, until President James K. Polk signed the treaty admitting Texas to the United States in 1845. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, March 2nd, was celebrated throughout Texas. But, again, as we are a Nation at war now, I hope that this Congress and the whole country realize that we did not start this country just yesterday. We have a tradition in our Nation of freedom, and that freedom not only started with our own independence in the 1700s but it started with the Texas independence in 1836, and that is why we celebrate Texas Independence Day.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Woodland Christian Church in Houston, Texas, which will celebrate its 70th Anniversary on March 2, 2002. Truly a milestone occasion, this celebration is a testament to the outstanding dedication and commitment of the entire church and community. The Woodland Christian Church was organized on March 2, 1932 as Woodland Heights. It has been located on its present site in North side Houston for almost 45 years and has an active congregation of 125 people. Throughout its history, the church has provided a caring, loving environment and has faithfully ministered to the spiritual needs of its members. It has been a source of hope and comfort in times of distress, and its Christian ministry has been one of outreach to the homeless and day laborers. The members of this church have operated a day care center and are active in a lunch program four days a week, providing sack lunches three days and a hot meal one day. Pastor Virzola Law, a new minister at Woodland Christian Church, has continued to give her endorsement and support to the ministry for the homeless. Situated in a low-income neighborhood, the Woodland Christian Church has been very active in the community assisting single mothers, transients, and other people in need. It has also sponsored two homes for senior citizens and disabled people, Woodland Christian Towers and Pecan Grove Manor. By their actions, the congregation of the Woodland Christian Church and its pastor have proven their commitment and dedication for others. This is also the church in which my wife, Helen, and I were married in 1970. Seventy years is a milestone, and that is why Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to help me recognize this truly remarkable church. We congratulate you on your many good works, and we wish you seventy more years of dedicated service.