Gene Green

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues in Congress to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding individual, Mr. Weaver Odom. Mr. Odom recently will retire after serving the Aldine Intermediate School District for 35 years, 31 of which has principal of Colonial Hills Elementary. Weaver Odom joined Aldine ISD in 1963 and spent the first few years of his career as a fifth and sixth grade teacher. In 1968 he became temporary principal at Colonial Hills, but the temporary label was dropped. His 31 years of dedicated service will leave a legacy for students and teachers alike. We in the Aldine ISD has been very fortunate to have benefited from Mr. Odom's dedication and loyalty. He always led by example and frequently welcomed students to school. Because he always treated others with respect and dignity, the people who work for him and attend his school consider him their friend as well as their principal. Staff, faculty and students alike have spoken out in appreciation for Mr. Odom's work ethic and love for his students. His staff is so loyal that almost half of the school's employees have been there for more then 10 years. Many have admitted they stay simply because Principal Odom makes working at Colonial Hills fun. In honor of Weaver Odom, the Aldine ISD recently announced it's decision to rename Colonial Hills to Odom Elementary. This honor is an appropriate way to thank Principal Odom for his dedication and leadership at the school and throughout the community. Education is the key to our children's future and the key to our country's continued success. Principal Odom shares this belief and has worked with his faculty and staff to ensure that all students have an opportunity for quality education. The twenty-first century will bring new challenges for our young people. Principal Odom has been committed to educating them to deal with these challenges. For years, families have known this school is run by a man dedicated to providing an environment conducive to learning. I am certain that the strength of the community would not be what it is without Mr. Odom's years of service and I am confident that his legacy will continue for years to come.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district during Rollcall Votes 532 through 535. Had I been present I would have voted yes on Rollcalls 532 and 533, and no on Rollcall 534, and no on Rollcall 535.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, public education is a local responsibility but a national concern. We have provided more police on the street to make our neighborhoods safe. Now, let us go the next step and spend it smarter by providing 100,000 new teachers to make our country stronger and hopefully not have to provide more police on the street. Let us help local public schools and parents have smaller classes to teach and mentor those children so we do not need those 100,000 new police officers in the next generation. My Republican friends oppose the new 100,000 teachers and the smaller class sizes. In fact one of their Members was quoted a few months ago as saying that public education is a relic of communism. Well, my district does not share that. More than 90 percent of my children go to public schools. My Republican friends brought a bill to the floor, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill about 2 weeks ago that would cut first Goals 2000, which is a block grant, 51 percent; cut School-to-Work 40 percent; cut American Reads Challenge 100 percent; cut summer youth jobs 100 percent. Where are the priorities they have for education?

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2327, the Drive For Teen Employment Act. I have been working on this bill for the last 3 years. With the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and our Committee on Education and the Workforce Members, we have reached the right balance between safety and common sense. As my colleagues have stated, this bill passed the House on September 28 by voice vote. Last night, the Senate adopted H.R. 2327 under unanimous consent with a technical clarification. The technical correction has no substantive impact on the bill. It merely corrects the enactment date. The bill will help increase employment opportunities for 17 years olds, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. H.R. 2327 addresses the liability of licensed 17 years olds to drive limited amounts on the job. Under current law, minors are permitted to drive on the job within certain limits. However, the Department of Labor has narrowly defined these restrictions to the point that minors would be prohibited from driving on the job under most circumstances. Fines have been levied, it was mentioned earlier, against automobile dealerships and other businesses having teens complete such tasks as moving cars after they are washed and returning vehicles from the gas station. The Drive For Teen Employment Act will establish a clear definition for limited driving, while maintaining injury-prevention measures on the job. This bill will allow limited driving for 17 year olds in low risk and supervised settings and provides numerous safeguards, including work- related driving is restricted to daylight hours, towing is prohibited, the driver must hold a State driver's license and must have completed a State approved driver education course, the driving is capped at 20 percent of the workweek, minors must not have any record of moving violations at the time they are hired, driving distances is limited to a 30-mile radius, and route deliveries and route sales are prohibited. By establishing safety precautions and clear guidelines for employers, we can encourage much-needed employment for our teenagers, while maintaining safety measures on the job. I have been told that the President will sign this reasonable legislation, and I encourage my colleagues support.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me time and allowing me to speak on this bill. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3888, the Anti-Slamming Amendments Act. As a member of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Madam Speaker, I am glad this bill will hopefully be passed and the Senate will consider it. Slamming is a deceptive practice of switching the consumer's long- distance service, either unknowingly or unwillingly. As a victim of slamming this last summer in my own household, like most of us, I asked my grown children, I said, who changed our long-distance carrier? Of course, they denied it. The carrier we were changed to was one who I would never use at all, Madam Speaker, because they have terrible labor relations, particularly in the Hispanic community. We received lots of calls in our district on the need to fight slamming, and today I believe we have a partial solution in front of us. It could have been much stronger, and I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the subcommittee, pointed that out. Any time we pass legislation, we have to compromise. But, hopefully, this is a step in the right direction. H.R. 3888 does two things. First, consumers are automatically switched back to their original carriers and are provided a credit for no more than 30 days worth of charges. Second, this bill weeds out the companies that continue to deceptively slam consumers by making them pay to switch back consumers, by providing a credit for charges, and by paying a $500 fine to both the slammed consumer and the original carrier. And the FCC may impose another $1,000 fine on the slamming company. Again, this goes a partial way. Hopefully, if this does not work we will come back next session to see if we need to beef it up again. H.R. 3888 protects the consumer and makes switching back to their original carrier easier and imposes no financial burden to them, although when I had to switch back I did not have any financial burden either. This legislation has wide support among consumer groups and the telecommunications industry and the administration, and the anti- slamming amendment also grandfathers all existing State anti-slamming laws, such as we have in my home district in Texas. Finally, we could have also done more on the anti-spamming, unsolicited e-mail advertisements. And as a cosponsor of an original bill on anti-spamming, I had hoped to go much further, and this is an issue that the next Congress should address. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to Burbank Middle School on their 50th Anniversary. This wonderful school has been serving the community of Houston, Texas faithfully for 50 years, and is well deserving of recognition and praise. Burbank Middle School is truly a model school that has a distinguished student body and staff. Burbank was dedicated on September 20, 1949, with 1,700 students, parents, teachers, and school administrators in attendance. The building's original cost was $2,250,000. This was a large investment in those days and demonstrates the commitment that the residents had for quality education. The dedication of the cornerstone was performed by past school board president Ewing Warlein. During the ceremony, he said: ``This great structure is dedicated to education in the finest sense of the word and is not only a monument to education, but a monument to the American way of life, to free enterprise and our constitutional form of government. This building is dedicated not only to the education of the children in this district but also to the boys and girls of generations yet unborn.'' Education is the key to our children's future and the key to our country's continued success. The teachers and staff at Burbank Middle School also believe this and have worked hard to ensure that all their students have an opportunity for quality education. The twenty-first century will bring new challenges for our young people, and we have an obligation to educate them to deal with these challenges. With the leadership of the parents, teachers, and staff of Burbank Middle School, we can accomplish anything. For years, families have know this school as a living monument in the community, making it a good place to study and learn. I am certain that the strength of this community would not be what it is today without the commitment of this school. I am honored to congratulate the members of the Burbank Middle School for making it a source of community pride for the past 50 years.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Travis County, Austin, Texas, and a great friend. We served together, and I was a State representative when he was in the State Senate in 1976, when Congressman Gonzalez portrait was hung. Let me quote: At that time Governor Dolph Briscoe called Congressman Gonzalez a truly dedicated public servant, and said he is gaining more influence yearly in the Texas delegation. He said, there are two types of Congressmen, and to this day that is still true. One is a show horse and the other is a workhorse, Governor Briscoe said, and certainly Congressman Gonzalez is a workhorse. I think that is a tribute not only in 1976, but also in 1998 to Congressman Gonzalez. There are lots of great stories on Henry B. that I have learned over my lifetime in Texas. One of them is his first run for Congress in 1961. Coming off the Viva Kennedy co-chair on a national basis, at that time Vice President Lyndon Johnson insisted he would not become involved in trying to tell the Baird County voters how to vote. And after that, he issued a strong endorsement of Congressman Gonzalez's candidacy in the San Antonio Express. The doors slammed shut for all practical purposes on Congressman Gonzalez' Democratic opponent. Vice President Johnson then neutralized the other opponents by his endorsement. So, again, Henry B. you run with lots of folks in Texas who I have admired for many years, including Vice President and President Lyndon Johnson. Henry B. has been known for his tenacity. We know that because it has been said tonight about his tenacity on special orders, but tenacity on issue after issue. It came as a surprise to some of us, but part of Henry B.'s success and tenacity is that he introduced a bill in 1965 to provide $50,000 survivor's benefits for law enforcement agents and firemen killed in the line of duty. Eleven years later, after the riots in the 1960s, this became law. Henry B. has been derided by opponents for the speeches he makes to an almost empty Chamber of the House. The Congressman has made in the neighborhood of thousands of speeches. In 1984, he had given 2,200 speeches in the House at that time in 23 years, making him the most prolific speaker in the House. His speeches under special orders are duly recorded in the Congressional Quarterly and his newsletters to his constituents. That was before C-SPAN, before we had nationwide coverage. Congressman Gonzalez was there making sure that his constituents were heard and he was representing his job as a Member of Congress. He is productive by the number of bills that he passed in Congress. Many times other Members from Texas could not pass legislation, but Congressman Gonzalez was the chief bill-passer in the State of Texas for Members of Congress. Again, that is a challenge some of us would like to be. Congressman Gonzalez, and again, my honor to him is he is considered one of the last great populists. It is a classic performance. A man better known as Henry B. or simply as HBG. Depending on who you ask he is either feisty, colorful or combative, or an eccentric that is looked upon with tolerance. But for his constituents in Texas, he has been a fighter and a populist for their needs and their desires for many years in Congress. We talked about his serving in the Senate and fighting the race-baiting bills in the late 1950s. But he also introduced the first minimum wage bill in the State Senate and it was 40 cents an hour in the 1950s. It is just an honor that I had the opportunity during my three terms of Congress to serve with him. Congressman Gonzalez' individuality has paid a price. Although widely revered in San Antonio and an icon in Texas, he is sometimes known in Congress as a loner and a maverick who charts his own course. And I do not think there is a better honor to you than that you are your own man, and you have been for 45 years in public service. He speaks out on issues. He is one that never is hesitant to stand up for both his ideas, but also the people he represents. Many years ago, and this has happened a number of times, I have admired him for being a fighter for his constituents. In 1963, there was a time when a Representative Foreman from Odessa was outside the House Chamber and accused Congressman Gonzalez of being a ``communist'' and a ``pinko,'' and Congressman Gonzalez challenged him. And those stories are endless. I remember one story when I was in the House of Representatives in Austin when Henry B. was in a restaurant in San Antonio and someone at the next table called him a communist and he got up and decked that person. Obviously, he represents Texas very well and a lot of us have learned many things, both in his feistiness, but also in his beliefs. He will stand by his beliefs and fight for his beliefs. And he has done so many great things. Let me mention just one thing. In 1968, I was in college and I had the opportunity to go to San Antonio. My wife and I were not married at that time, but both of us were University of Houston students. And, of course, at that time one would not go out of town overnight with their best girl. My wife and I got on a bus from Houston and took the bus from Houston to San Antonio Texas to go to the HemisFair, and HemisFair was in San Antonio because of Congressman Gonzalez. And it brought international acclaim and literally opened up the city, and I am still proud to go to San Antonio today and see the Henry B. Gonzalez Courthouse that is in the HemisFair grounds that he triumphed back in his first years in Congress. There are so many stories, Mr. Speaker, but not only Members from Texas but Members who served with Congressman Gonzalez on the Committee on Banking, the Members of the Hispanic Caucus. I am proud to honor a man who has worked and improved the quality of life for men and women not just in his district and not just in the State of Texas, but throughout our country. I have been fortunate and we have been fortunate to have a Member like Henry B. Gonzalez to serve as our colleague, our friend, and our Dean of the Texas delegation. Before I close, I would like to mention his wife of 58 years, Bertha Cuellar Gonzalez, originally from Floresville, but 58 years of marriage. I thought my wife and I at 28 years had been married many years, but hopefully we will make 58. Fifty-eight years of marriage and love. The reason Henry B. could not come back earlier was because he knows who the boss is in our households, and his wife was making sure that Henry B.'s health was well enough for him to come back and continue his duties as a Member of Congress. Both the love of your wife and family, and also the love of your fellow Members of Congress and your constituents is the best tribute more than we can ever say here on the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that if I could just walk in his shadow and fill part of his shoes, I will consider myself to be a successful Member of Congress.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, as Democratic Members of the House, we are well aware of Henry B.'s efforts on behalf of the Democratic party for many years. He was an articulate spokesman in presidential politics since 1960 when he served as the national cochair of the Viva Kennedy campaign. I first remember reading about Congressman Gonzalez because I admired him so long before I met him. In 1956, he was elected to a 4-year term in the Texas State Senate, becoming the first Mexican-American to gain a seat in that body in 110 years. He soon attracted international attention when, with a colleague, he staged the longest filibuster in the history of Texas. There were 10 race bills under consideration in which Senator Gonzalez at that time opposed. He said at the time, and I quote, ``It may be some kind of chloroform for their conscience, but if we fear long enough, we hate, and if we hate long enough, we fight.'' Eight of the bills were defeated because of Senator Gonzalez. One of those passed was later declared unconstitutional, and in 5 years in the Texas Senate, he clearly identified with the poor, opposing sales taxes and rising tuition costs, while favoring some clearance and controls on lobbyists long before it was in vogue. I am proud to honor Henry B. Gonzalez. When I was running for Congress in 1992 in my district in the east end and north side of Houston, I had a number of people who had served as precinct judges for many years in my community, and they would come up to me and say, if all you ever do is walk in the shadow of Henry B. Gonzalez and walk in his footsteps, that is the kind of Congressman we want you to be. That was such a great honor. I say to the gentleman from Texas, Henry B., I have some constituents who are the gentleman's longtime friends, A.V. Almos is still a precinct judge, and Cruz Injos and his family. We have a group called the Old Timers Club which has been meeting for many years, and they were part of the nucleus of the group in 1961 when you ran for the U.S. Senate and made it a close race. With that, I tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), we are glad to share this night with him. Let me talk about one of Henry B. Gonzalez's famous stands. He wanted to be a voice and not an echo. On a recent Friday afternoon, Henry B. Gonzalez received a standing ovation from his colleagues who not only heard his speech, but they cheered him afterwards. Henry was caught by some tricky parliamentary maneuver. A Republican Member of Congress, angry at the Democrats' tactics, unexpectedly moved to adjourn. Now in the minority, we understand how that happens, Mr. Speaker. With his speech in hand, our Texas congressman demanded a rollcall. Surprised colleagues showed up and voted 213 to 99 to let Congressman Gonzalez speak. When the Chair finally recognize him, Congressman Gonzalez responded, ``Mr. Speaker, overwhelmed by the popular demand to be heard,'' and the Chamber was filled with laughter. Before launching into his attacks lambasting President Reagan for his actions in Grenada, Congressman Gonzalez explained why he spoke so frequently, often several times a week. A House member, he said, has only two real powers: one is to register his vote, and the other one is his voice. Congressman Gonzalez has been a voice and not an echo. Congressman Gonzalez at that time assured his colleagues that speechmaking did not evolve after House activities becoming televised. In fact, he claims the heart of his district was still without cable, because at that time it was only cable coverage. Now we have C-Span, but back at that time there was only cable. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Austin, Texas (Mr. Doggett), who also served in the State Senate. It is almost an alumni club. In fact, the gentleman was in Senate when Congressman Gonzalez's portrait was hung in 1976.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to recognize that our good friend and colleague, Henry B. Gonzalez, has joined us on the floor of the House, and tonight, a number of Members are using the remainder of this hour to talk about his achievements and pay both honor and respect to him for his many years in service, not just in Congress, but also to the people of Texas as a city council member, a State senator, and later on this evening I will read from some articles that we have received over the years on Henry B. As Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he led the efforts to repair the savings and loan industry and help stop the crisis from spreading to our banks by overhauling the deposit insurance system. Congressman Gonzalez has been a burr under the Federal Reserve saddle for many years. He is responsible for the Fed's shift to a restricted money policy and for the release of monetary policy proceedings. Henry B. Gonzalez has been a crusader on behalf of our environment. In 1990, the American General Insurance Company wanted to build a $2.5 billion tourist attraction on the Padre Island National Seashore, which we consider a Texas treasure. Through intense lobbying, they attempted to exclude Padre Island from the protection of the Coastal Barrier Act, known as our Wetlands Act. Henry B., using his influence and power of persuasion, saved this beachfront for its natural beauty for the next generations of Texans. I find it awkward, Mr. Speaker, for me to be standing here as a third-term Member of Congress, because as a State House member in the 1970s and the 1980s, I used to consider Henry B. the king of the Special Orders, because I watched him many times extolling the problems that he saw for our country. Again, just like I mentioned earlier, in requiring the President to get the permission of Congress before having our troops in foreign military action in the case of Lebanon, he introduced a resolution, and again, Congress should have listened to him because 3 days after Congressman Gonzalez' last statement was the loss of lives of the marines in Beirut. I have a lot I would like to talk about this evening, but I would like to yield to my colleague, another colleague from Texas, Congressman Jim Turner, who again served with me in the State senate and enjoyed the portrait in the State Capitol. I mentioned earlier there are only 2 State senators who have their portrait in the State Capitol: Henry B. Gonzalez, this gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and also Barbara Jordan, who is your contemporary and whom you served with. I would like to yield time to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. GREEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, Congressman Gonzalez' outstanding 45 year career of public service and his 38 year career demonstrates his deep commitment to public service and his constituents and his thorough knowledge of the House procedures in his dedication to this House of Representatives. Prior to his election to the House of Representatives in 1961, Henry B. served as a member of the San Antonio City Council and as City Mayor Pro Tem. He was subsequently elected to the Texas State Senate where he is remembered as a champion of the people. He is revered, known, for leading a 36 hour filibuster against legislation which sought to uphold and facilitate the principles of segregation. Henry B. held the floor of the Texas Senate for 22 hours and 2 minutes finishing shoeless and exhausted but victorious in the late 1950s. He made such an impression on the Texas State Senate that his portrait hangs in the chamber in Austin, Texas. Only one other Member of Congress has ever had their portrait hung in the Chamber of the Texas Senate, the late Barbara Jordan. Henry B. was elected to Congress in 1961, and his legislative agenda included housing, the need for lower interest rates, education, adequate energy supply at a reasonable price, more industry for San Antonio, increases in minimum wage, not only as a State Senator in Texas in the 1950s, but also a host of other issues that are important to the people in his community and the people in the State of Texas but also the people of our Nation. Throughout his service in Congress, Henry B. has made his mission to force the chief executive to justify any military action. In 1983, Congressman Gonzalez was the only Member calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon. He introduced the resolution to this effect and continued to speak out on this issue. Congress should have listened to him, because 3 days after his last statement on the subject, the Beirut bombing occurred. Henry B.'s greatest accomplishments are in the area of affordable housing. He insisted on protecting the rights of low income citizens instead of ganging up on them like some people do. Mr. Speaker, I will go on for a few minutes, but I would like to yield to both a good friend, but also a neighbor of the 20th district in San Antonio, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight and requested this special order and share it with a number of our colleagues to pay tribute to our friend and colleague and the Dean of the Texas Congressional Delegation, the distinguished Congressman from 20th Congressional District of Texas, Henry B. Gonzalez. It is an honor to be associated with such a great man, and we wish him well in his retirement. Texas has many colorful and distinguished leaders, some of which have reached the level of legend. Henry B. Gonzalez worked in Congress and his dedication to his constituents places him that top category. Henry B. has been noted as being the last great populist. His tenacity marks his good works. He has been a voice and not a echo, and he has also been known as a fighter. And I will go on, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to yield to the incoming Dean of the Texas Democrat delegation, my colleague from Dallas, Martin Frost.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this legislation, although the veterans' benefit is the definite plus in the bill and makes it worthy in its own right. It is a shame that, after literally months of discussions and hours of meetings, this is the best we could do on home health care. The best part of the bill is it will not hurt any home health care agency. Every agency that is affected by this bill will be helped; but in my State of Texas, very few of them will. However, this bill does not address the looming 15 percent cut in payments to agencies that is right around the corner. It does not address the problems most agencies will face when they receive their demand letters from HCFA. So, despite our efforts today, many home health care agencies could be forced to close, only because HCFA did not notify of them of their IPS rate until as late as July. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4567 is not the home health care fix most of us had hoped for. But it is a start in the right direction, and I look forward to properly addressing all of the other problems the IPS has caused at the start of the next session of Congress.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding this time for me and allowing me to speak in opposition to this ill-advised bill. I want to support bankruptcy reform, but not this conference committee report. There are several provisions in this bill that prevent it from meeting its intended goal, and we have heard that from lots of Members, particularly Members from Texas, the homestead protection concerns we have, how it is affecting military personnel. But, worst of all, however, is that it is doing nothing to slow the growing trend of young people who have to file for bankruptcy each year. We are stopping or hindering the filing of bankruptcy on the inside, but we are not helping the front end. They change the law on bad business practices that allow the loose availabilty of credit to young people. Let me give some examples. Big banks and credit card companies target teenagers and college students with little or no income, they get maxed out on their credit cards, and then they only pay the minimum balance. And so, with 15 or 18 percent interest, they are getting ready to graduate from college with that huge amount, and when we add in their student loans that they owe, and that is bad business practices. And I know that personally because I have two college students that have very little income, but they get blank checks in the mail from their credit card companies. Just sign up. Most of their friends in college are maxed out on their credit cards because they are having to do it. They have credit availability easy. Let us make sure we have a bankruptcy farm bill, but let us also make the people who are making it available and making these young people graduate from college with such a debt load, they owe a responsibility to this bill, too, and it is not in this conference committee report. We should not put that burden on the people who are the next generation of people who are going to be leading our country.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ray Leo ``Michael'' Eakin III, who died tragically on September 29, 1998, while performing his duties as a deputy constable. I would like to extend my condolences to his parents, Bill and Janet Green, as well as his mother, Barbara Johnson, his father, Ray Eakin, Jr., and his many other relatives and friends. Michael went out every day to make a difference and he did--some days in small ways, some days in big ways, and on September 29, 1998, at the cost of his life. One cannot ask more of peace officers. Michael had been in law enforcement for 4\1/2\ years, spending the past 2\1/2\ years working for Harris County Precinct One Constable Jack Abercia. Before that he worked in the Montgomery County Constable's office. Michael Eakin is the first person to die while performing his duties in the Harris County Precinct One Constable's office. During Michael's tenure with the Constable's office, he served with distinction in contract patrol, building security, warrant division and the Hardy Toll Road patrol. He grew up in the Aldine area and attended school there. During his senior year, his family moved to Conroe, Texas, where he graduated from high school. The loss of a peace officer is a tragic event. The Book of John, Chapter 15, verse 13 states: Greater love has not man than this, that a man way down his life for his friends. I believe this message has special meaning today and forever. As a father and proud family man, I cannot begin to understand the pain and heartache being felt by the Green and Eakin families. I can only hope and pray that this death was not in vein, and we all join together to pray for them. Deputy Constable Michael Eakin's dedication and devotion to the citizens of Harris County serves as a model for all law enforcement. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life of Michael Eakin.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me to rise in opposition to this bill and the rule. This appropriations bill grossly underfunds our national priority of providing the best public education for each and every child. There is not enough time left in this 105th Congress to talk about how bad this bill is. Let me just try to hit some of the highlights. Goals 2000, an education program that started with President Bush and continued under this President, is cut 50 percent from last year's funding level. The School-to-Work program is cut by $250 million. The America Reads program is eliminated. In addition to these extremist cuts, my Republican colleagues want to deny initial funding to many other important education programs. Funds for Title I grants are frozen, cutting the administration's request by $437 million, denying over a half a million students in high poverty communities the extra help they need to master the basic courses. Funding for College Work Study is cut by $50 million below the administration's request, denying 57,000 needy students college work study awards. Head Start is cut by $160 million below the administration's request, denying slots to 25,000 low-income children. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard in Houston to ensure that we have the best Head Start program possible. We have three new providers now, and by collaborating with our public schools, we can truly give our children a real head start on life, but we cannot by short-circuiting and not providing the funding. We have made great strides, but additional funds are needed to meet the overwhelming need in the Head Start program. The Republican approach to education is a wrong approach, and I think it is an approach that the American people do not want. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote down this shortsighted bill.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the open ended investigation and support a limited one. Mr. Speaker, the overturning of an election in a democracy should not be taken lightly. Our country's history in presidential impeachment inquiries is limited due to the seriousness of overturning an election. The President's conduct cannot be defended, and I have not done so. Like most Americans, I believed the President last January when he misled and lied to us. I was disappointed with the President's behavior and I will not defend his actions. The House Judiciary Committee has recommended the beginning of an inquiry into impeachment of the President. This resolution is not limited in scope or time. The Independent Counsel's office has submitted one report based on the Lewinsky allegations while the Judiciary Committee, on a partisan vote, wants an inquiry that is broad-based and not limited in time. We should provide limits to any inquiry that potentially will overturn an election. One of our founding fathers, George Mason, said that the phrase ``high crimes and misdemeanors refers to presidential actions that are great and dangerous offenses, or attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper Number 65, wrote that ``Impeachable offenses relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.'' An impeachment should only be undertaken for serious abuse of official power or a serious breach of official duties. The impeachment process should never be used as a legislative vote of no confidence on the President's conduct or policies. This week I had the opportunity to listen to many constitutional scholars. Attached is a letter from some of them that provides the basis to oppose an unlimited inquiry. October 2, 1998. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Speaker: Did President Clinton commit ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' for which he may properly be impeached? We, the undersigned professors of law, believe that the misconduct alleged in the Independent Counsel's report does not cross that threshold. We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of us believe that the President has acted disgracefully, some that the Independent Counsel has. This letter has nothing to do with any such judgments. Rather, it expresses the one judgment on which we all agree: that the Independent Counsel's report does not make a case for presidential impeachment. No existing judicial precedents bind Congress's determination of the meaning of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But it is clear that Members of Congress would violate their constitutional responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the President merely for conduct of which they disapproved. The President's independence from Congress is fundamental to the American structure of government. It is essential to the separation of powers. It is essential to the President's ability to discharge such constitutional duties as vetoing legislation that he considers contrary to the nation's interests. And it is essential to governance whenever the White House belongs to a party different from that which controls the Capitol. The lower the threshold for impeachment, the weaker the President. If the President could be removed for any conduct of which Congress disapproved, this fundamental element of our democracy--the President's independence from Congress--would be destroyed. It is not enough, therefore, that Congress strongly disapprove of the President's conduct. Under the Constitution, the President cannot be impeached unless he has committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Some of the charges laid out in the Independent Counsel's report fall so far short of this high standard that they strain good sense: for example, the charge that the President repeatedly declined to testify voluntarily or pressed a debatable privilege claim that was later judicially rejected. These ``offenses'' are not remotely impeachable. With respect, however, to other allegations, the report requires careful consideration of the kind of misconduct that renders a President constitutionally unfit to remain in office. Neither history nor legal definitions provide a precise list of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reasonable people have differed in interpreting these words. We believe that the proper interpretation of the Impeachment Clause must begin by recognizing treason and bribery as core or paradigmatic instances, from which the meaning of ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' is to be extrapolated. The constitutional standard for impeachment would be very different if, instead of treason and bribery, different offenses had been specified. The clause does not read, ``Arson, Larceny, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any significant crime might be an impeachable offense. Nor does it read, ``misleading the People, Breach of Campaign Promises, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any serious violation of public confidence might be impeachable. Nor does it read, ``Adultery, Fornication, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' implying that any conduct deemed to reveal serious moral lapses might be an impeachable offense. When a President commits treason, he exercises his executive powers, or uses information obtained by virtue of his executive powers, deliberately to aid an enemy. When a President is bribed, he exercises or offers to exercise his executive powers in exchange for corrupt gain. Both acts involve the criminal exercise of presidential powers, converting those awful powers into an instrument either of enemy interests or of purely personal gain. We believe that the critical, distinctive feature of treason and bribery is grossly derelict exercise of official power (or, in the case of bribery to obtain or retain office, gross criminality in the pursuit of official power). Nonindictable conduct might rise to this level. For example, a President might be properly impeached if, as a result of drunkenness, he recklessly and repeatedly misused executive authority. The misconduct of which the President is accused does not involve the derelict exercise of executive powers. Most of this misconduct does not involve the exercise of executive powers at all. If the President committed perjury regarding his sexual conduct, this perjury involved no exercise of presidential power as such. If he concealed evidence, this misdeed too involved no exercise of executive authority. By contrast, if he sought wrongfully to place someone in a job at the Pentagon, or lied to subordinates hoping they would repeat his false statements, these acts could have involved a wrongful use of presidential influence, but we cannot believe that the President's alleged conduct of this nature amounts to the grossly derelict exercise of executive power sufficient for impeachment. Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be impeachable offenses. A President who corruptly used the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obstruct an investigation would have criminally exercised his presidential powers. Moreover, covering up a crime furthers or aids the underlying crime. Thus a President who committed perjury to cover up his subordinates' criminal exercise of executive authority would also have committed an impeachable offense. But if the underlying offense were adultery, calling the President to testify could not create an offense justifying impeachment where there was none before. It goes without saying that lying under oath is a serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this case. The House's power to impeach, like a prosecutor's power to indict, is discretionary. This power must be exercised not for partisan advantage, but only when circumstances genuinely justify the enormous price the nation will pay in governance and stature if its President is put through a long, public, voyeuristic trial. The American people understand this price. They demonstrate the political wisdom that has held the Constitution in place for two centuries when, even after the publication of Mr. Starr's report, with all its extraordinary revelations, they oppose impeachment for the offenses alleged therein. We do not say that a ``private'' crime could never be so heinous as to warrant impeachment. Thus Congress might responsibly determine that a President who had committed murder must be in prison, not in office. An individual who by the law of the land cannot be permitted to remain at large, need not be permitted to remain President. But if certain crimes demand immediate removal of a President from office because of their unspeakable heinousness, the offenses alleged against the President in the Independent Counsel's referral are not among them. Short of heinous criminality, impeachment demands convincing evidence of grossly derelict exercise of official authority. In our judgment, Mr. Starr's report contains no such evidence. Sincerely, Jed Rubenfeld, Professor of Law, Yale University. Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University. Akhil Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University. Susan Bloch, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Paul D. Carrington, Harry R. Chadwick Sr. Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law. John Hart Ely, Richard A. Hausler Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law. Susan Estrich, Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Southern California. John E. Nowak, David C. Baum Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law. Judith Resnik, Arthur L. Liman Professor, Yale Law School. Christopher Schroeder, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law. Suzanne Sherry, Earl R. Larson Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Geoffrey R. Stone, Harry Kalven, Jr. Dist. Serv. Professor & Provost, University of Chicago Law School. Laurence H. Tribe, Tyler Professor of Constitution Law, Harvard University Law School. Note: Institutional affiliations for purposes of identification only. I urge a yes vote for a limited and specific inquiry and a no vote on the open-ended, partisan Judiciary Committee inquiry. Our nation is more important than an individual or political party.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleagues trying to define the Democrats, and sometimes they would not know one if they saw one. But the problem we have this year is that this is a historic Congress. We are getting ready to vote tomorrow on an historic vote on opening an inquiry of impeachment of the President. But this, more than any Congress, has done nothing at all for the American people on the bread and butter issues. But what I want to talk about this morning is the HMO reform that should have been passed, should have been passed by the Senate, and the quality bill should have been passed by the House. It is clear that this do-nothing Congress has been by design this year, because they don't want to make the changes that the American people want. The polls show the American people want HMO reform. They want their doctors to be able to help them make medical decisions instead of a gag rule. They want to be able to appeal decisions made by a bureaucrat with an insurance company. They want some choices in their medical care. They want access to specialty care, and they want emergency care when they need it, not based on somebody deciding, no, you cannot go to your closest emergency room. That is why this is a do-nothing Congress, and that is why tomorrow, even with this historic vote, we are going to go home without providing any help to the American people for their health care.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for yielding. Taking up that, we both serve on the Committee on Commerce, and I serve on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, and I would look forward to being able to work on a bill bipartisanly for a real Patients' Bills of Rights. But my colleague is right, the bill did not come to our committee. It was drafted in a task force. And we drafted ours in a task force, too. But we do not have the ability to bring bills out to the floor as the minority party here, and so that is the problem. I want to make a few points about the Republican bill would do to State-passed patient protections and share with my colleagues concerns that have been raised by officials in my own home State. And, again, we discussed this before, that States all over the country have passed patient protection bills to deal with insurance policies that are licensed in that individual State. We have to pass a national bill because so many of our companies come under ERISA, the Federal law, and so they do not fall under State regulation. So we have really two regulations of health insurance depending on how the policy is drafted. It could be under the State of New Jersey or the State of Texas, or it could fall under ERISA on the Federal level. Very simply, the bill that we passed here on the floor, and I say ``we'' because we are collectively here, but my colleague and I voted against it and spoke against it, the Republican so-called Patient Protection Act should really be called the Patient Protection Elimination Act. Texas State Comptroller John Sharp recently urged not only myself, but also Members of Congress from Texas to urge Congress to support the States and respect the work that they have done and not undermine them. Like so many States across the country, Texas has responded to the needs of its citizens and passed real managed care reform and true patient protections. Unfortunately, the bill that the Republicans recently rushed through the House without committee hearings would preempt these laws and re- expose the very citizens to these laws that were passed to protect them. In other words, it not only does not help us, it actually goes against the reforms that were passed in individual States because it would re-expose us to problems in unregulated hazard health care that the States have been taken care of. This simply is not right, and each State has a need specific to that State. And while it is sometimes necessary to pass a uniform national law like we have to, we should not overrule what a local State is doing, particularly when they are dealing with their constituents. So often we hear from our colleagues on the Republican side that government closest to the people works most effectively and listens better. Well, I generally agree with that. Having served 20 years in the legislature, it was actually driven home to me every day. And in this case, I think it is true. The States ought to be able to deal with the insurance policies that are licensed in their State, and we should not, by the bill that we pass, overrule what the State legislatures have done. Doing so strips critical patient protections from the few people who actually have them now by the States passing them. And let us be clear about the Republican Patient Protection Act. It eliminates patients' protections. I know it does in my home State. And while they may try to tell my colleagues that they have included similar provisions in the bill, I have read the fine print when we had that day-long debate and it became mixed up in all those well- intentioned protections or loopholes that we could literally drive a truck through. Another letter that my office recently received from State representative John Smithy and Mr. David Sibley, two Republican committee chairmen in the Texas Legislature, who were the sponsors of our Patient Protection Act that passed in the State legislature. As chairman of the committees of jurisdiction over insurance and managed care in Texas that recently passed legitimate patient protections, they have an understanding of these issues. While many Republicans here in Washington keep saying real reform is too expensive and would be too big a burden on insurance companies, it is important to note that the similar protections and provisions that were passed in Texas raised premiums only 34 cents per month, 34 cents per member per month. That is right. All those extravagant claims about increased costs are simply not true. We do not have to rely on partisan estimates or even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Just look at the demonstration project already underway in Texas where recent laws passed that allow patients to sue their HMO. If that HMO makes a decision on the health care, that puts the responsibility with the person who makes it. They have access to binding and independent review. They can communicate freely with their provider without fear of retaliation against their doctor. In other words, they eliminated the gag rule. And they can utilize emergency room services if they experience symptoms that a prudent lay person would consider an emergency, including extreme pain. And I have used this example before, and all of us particularly at our age smile about it, but how do I know at 10 or 11 o'clock at night when I am having chest pains that it may not be the pizza that I had at 6 o'clock, it may actually be a heart attack. And if we are having extreme pain and discomfort, then that should be part of it, because, again, we are lay people. We are not practitioners of medicine. And what does that cost in Texas? Thirty-four cents. In fact, it is ironic that that is less than a cup of coffee here in the Capitol. I do not drink coffee, but that is what my staff tells me. What worries me is it may be too late this year, and I hope not. But this body should make a commitment to real managed care reform in the next Congress and make it one of the top priorities and not put it at the end of the session, but put it at the beginning of the session. And, hopefully, when our constituents go vote on November 3, they will remember who had the actual real Patient Protection Act, and it was Members of Congress who worked and tried to learn from what is going on in our local States and said, okay, let us provide that on a national basis so everybody, no matter if you have a State-licensed insurance plan or policy or one who comes under Federal law, they will still have the basic protections that they should have to protect them through their managed care, their HMO provider. I want to thank my colleague for, one, requesting this time tonight, because outside of education, there is no other issue that my constituents call about than health care. Managed care, Medicare, which also we have had some problems with some of the proposals under managed care that would be another special order some night that we may want to talk about under Medicare. But this is so important. I guess the frustration is that senior citizens under Medicare will have these protections because the President signed an Executive Order that covers both Medicare, retired military, and also government managed care plans that cover Federal employees, but the average citizen out there will not have it. And we need to provide for those citizens the same protections and the same insurance that my colleague and I have. I have heard that from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I think that is what important about it. Again, I thank my colleague for allowing us to have this special order and taking his time tonight.

Mr. GREEN. And the Senate could take up the bill number that we passed over there and put real reforms in that bill. What we did is wrong because it is a step backwards. But the Senate could change it and pass real patient protections and send it back to us and hopefully we would just concur in the Senate amendments to the bill and it would make it stronger, include an antigag rule, emergency room care and an outside appeals process.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 4060, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY 1999. Included in this important conference report is an appropriation for the continued dredging project for the Houston Ship Channel. This has been a long time coming and we have all worked very hard to get to this point. The expansion of the Houston Ship Channel is important on many levels. The Port of Houston, connected to the Gulf of Mexico by the 53- mile ship channel, is the busiest U.S. port in foreign tonnage, second in domestic tonnage and the world's eighth busiest U.S. port overall. With more than 6,435 vessels navigating the channel annually and an anticipated increase over the next few years, the widening of the channel from 400 to 520 feet and its deepening from 40 to 45 feet is a necessary step in safeguarding the economic viability of the port and the City of Houston. The port provides $5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates 196,000 direct and indirect jobs in our communities. By generating $300 million annually to the federal government from customs fees generated by port activities and $213 million annually in state and local taxes, this Ship Channel dredging project will more than pay for itself. We have made a good first step. For Fiscal Year 1998, the Congress approved $20 million to begin construction. With the leadership and dedication of my colleagues, Chairman Joseph McDade and ranking Member Vic Fazio, as well as Congressman Chet Edwards, we have secured $49 million for fiscal year 1999. We still have a lot of work to ensure that the deepening and widening project remains on schedule. Working together, I know we will be successful.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2327, the Drive for Teen Employment Act. I have been working on this bill for three years and believe we have reached the right balance between safety and common-sense. I would like to express my appreciation to my colleague from Texas, Mr. Combest, as well as the Democratic Members of the Education and Workforce Committee, for the opportunity to address my safety concerns. This bill will help increase employment opportunities for 17-year-olds, and I urge my colleagues to support it. H.R. 2327 addresses the ability of licensed 17-year-olds to drive limited amounts on the job. Under current law, minors are permitted to drive on the job within certain limits. However, the Department of Labor has narrowly defined these restrictions to the point that minors would be prohibited from driving on the job under most circumstances. Fines have been levied against automobile dealerships and other businesses for having teens complete such tasks as moving cars after they are washed or returning vehicles from the gasoline station. The Drive for Teen Employment Act merely established a clear definition for limited driving, while maintaining injury-prevention measures on the job. This bill will allow limited driving by a 17-year- old in low risk and supervised settings and provides numerous safeguards, including: work-related driving is restricted to daylight hours; towing is prohibited; the driver must hold a state driver's license and must have completed a state approved driver education course; the driving is capped at 20 percent of the work week; minors must not have any record of moving violations at the time of hire; driving distance is limited to a 30-mile radius; route deliveries and route sales are prohibited; and urgent, time-sensitive deliveries are prohibited. By establishing safety precautions and clear guidelines for employers, we can encourage much-needed employment for teenagers, while maintaining safety measures on the job. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, the bill, and in support of the Democratic substitute. For too long this Congress has had the habit of using the Social Security trust funds to hide the true amount of our deficit. Now Republicans want to use the Social Security trust fund to inflate the value of the budget surplus. This money should not only be saved, but it needs to be saved to ensure the solvency of the Social Security program. Let us be honest about the budget. It is only in balance because of Social Security. If we remove Social Security trust funds from our budget calculation, we would still have a deficit. This bill to supposedly save 90 percent of the surplus for Social Security is a sham. By supporting this bill, the Republicans are doing nothing more than taking from America's seniors to pay for a tax cut. Democrats want to save 100 percent of the surplus to pay for a program that has worked well for seniors and their families but is in need of repair--Social Security. By voting for the Republican fig-leaf bill and against the Democratic substitute, Republicans are voting to cut the money available for strengthening Social Security.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my appreciation for my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio). When this session ends, the Democratic Caucus and the House of Representatives will be losing one of our most respected Members. Vic has served with distinction as chairman of our Democratic Caucus, and although the times have not been the best for our Caucus, Vic has kept us focused on the issues that really are important to the American people. Since first coming to Washington in 1979, he earned a reputation as one of Capitol Hill's most effective legislators. On a personal note, I want to thank the gentleman for his support and leadership as a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, in the expansion of the Port of Houston project that is so important to deepening and widening the channels. It is important to my community but also to my area. This is one small effort of hundreds, both big and small, that Vic has worked on in his career here in Congress to make our country a much better place to live. Vic, I have enjoyed working with you during my three terms and learning from you, and I wish you the best in your retirement.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, this Congress made a commitment to save and protect Social Security for the future. It is one of the most successful domestic programs that has ever been created, but now, according to my Republican colleagues, we have a surplus, which means that we can then provide a tax cut, while at the same time continue to hide the real deficit with Social Security funds. To make matters worse, it is estimated that the proposed tax cut would benefit mostly those who earn over $100,000 a year. To spend this illusionary surplus is wrong. We need to remove Social Security from the budget and pay down the national debt. Let us be honest, we do not have a surplus if we do not include Social Security in the budget. What we have is borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund, and this money will have to be paid back-- every penny of it. This surplus should go to the Social Security trust fund and not a tax cut, because there is no surplus.

Mr. GREEN

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, on October 1, the Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans will be celebrating their achievements over the past 27 years. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to AAMA for its leadership and dedication to our community and would like to extend my congratulations. Founded in 1970 in Houston, Texas, AAMA is the largest Hispanic nonprofit service provider in Texas. This community organization was founded to advance the needs of Hispanic families that are coping and struggling to beat back the grip of poverty, poor health and family planning, and low educational attainment. Today, AAMA provides services in Houston and across South Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly discuss some of these services. The George I. Sanchez Charter High School was founded in 1973 to provide at-risk Hispanic youth with an alternative educational environment. Today, the school is the largest Texas charter school, serving 389 low-income, at-risk students. The class of 1997 graduated 95 students, with one-third advancing into higher education. I was proud to host Secretary of Education Richard Riley on his visit to see one of the most successful charter schools in the nation. The AAMA Adelante Family Education Program provides English-as-a- second language classes, GED classes, citizenship training classes, and native literacy classes to immigrants and other adults who are working toward an education that will improve their marketability in the U.S. workforce. In addition to these education services, AAMA also operates many social service programs, including three gang intervention programs, two HIV and AIDS counseling programs and several drug and alcohol abuse programs throughout Texas. With these programs in place, it is easy to see why AAMA is the largest social service provider in Texas. AAMA is also involved in community development. The AAMA Community Development Corporation is dedicated to the revitalization of Houston's inner-city through the development of affordable and decent housing. The AAMA Community Development Corporation recently completed and leased a new 84-unit affordable living center in Houston's East End. No other development had occurred in this area in over 30 years. AAMA is fortunate to have leaders like Gilbert Moreno, President and CEO, as well as Board Members Karen Becerra, Anthony Magdaleno, Maria Garza, Fernando Tovar, David Corpus, Carmen Orta, Raymond T. Garcia, Daniel Gonzalez, Taylor Margis-Noriega, David Medina, Jacob Monty, Olga Ordonez, Lisa Ottman, Eduardo Pellon, Rudy Ramos, Rogelio R. Santos, and Antonio Villanueva. Without their dedication and commitment, we would not be celebrating twenty-seven productive years. Congratulations to everyone associated with AAMA and best wishes for continued success.