Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a leading member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the debate on Iraq today I think confuses the American people. After all, one side focuses solely on parliamentary procedure or when they do on substance they focus solely on the tough times and the challenges that we face, which are very real. But its message all too often is devoid of any mention of progress. Sometimes it even suggests that we are not better off, we are not safer since Saddam's capture. However, the other side, Mr. Speaker, the side that I am on, talks openly of our soldiers' historic victories, how just 1 year after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam is in a dark cell, Osama is in a dark cave, and General Qaddafi is learning to play better with others. The good news for the American public is that soon they will not have to rely on the media or the politics from either side of the aisle as the troop rotations take place. The public will get to hear from the soldiers themselves, our hometown heroes. And the story that they are going to hear is moving, it is amazing, it is historic. On the sobering side, the public will hear of mass graves discovered and death cells shut down. On the thrilling side, they will hear about some of the things I saw myself when I was in Iraq just a few months ago. The public will hear of schools and universities that are open and operating, clinics and hospitals that are open and serving, and democratically elected governing councils that are open and governing. They will hear that well over 100,000 Iraqis now serve in the military and the police and that water projects and economic development are well under way. In Mosul when I was there, I saw a sign on the wall of the headquarters of the 101st which read: ``We are in a race to win over the Iraqi people. What have you done to contribute to victory today?'' The answer from our magnificent troops is clear, a lot, an unbelievable amount. And Lord willing, the public is going to hear more each and every day about just what these fantastic brave men have done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today before this House I'd like to recognize Rhinelander, Wisconsin, which recently hosted a collapsed structure training exercise for first responders from across northern Wisconsin. On September 11, 2001, America learned that the best way to defend ourselves against a terrorist attack is through preparation. We were all caught off guard by the terrible events of that day, but rather than wait around for another terrorist strike, America's first responders rallied to make our Nation safer than ever. Last December, fire fighters, medical professionals and security officials from my district gathered together in Rhinelander to address a serious issue in our area's emergency response network--structural collapses. These first responders received significant training and instruction on how to secure the scene around a collapsed structure and rescue those trapped inside. Keeping America safe means preparing to stop terrorists wherever they may strike. To terrorists who target all Americans, small towns and villages are just as vulnerable as big cities, and we cannot ignore their needs for greater security. First responders in northern Wisconsin continue to prepare for the unthinkable, and they are a superb example to small communities around the country. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and pleasure to recognize Rhinelander for its leadership in the war on terror, and on behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District, we say keep up the great work.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many people across America have had the misfortune of tuning into this debate. Because if they did and are watching this debate, they would be wondering what evil it is that has crept into this land. All over America people are seeing something a little bit different than what the other side is presenting today. All across the land, people are familiar with organizations like Habitat for Humanity, St. Vincent DePaul, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, and in my neck of the woods organizations like Urban Hope and Rawhide Boys' Ranch, which saves young men before they choose a career path of crime, or Matt's Place, which is trying to provide positive outlets for wayward youth. They think of those organizations, and they are trying to match those organizations with the rhetoric that they are hearing from the other side, and shake their heads. The real issue today is whether or not this institution is going to chase their wonderful groups away, whether or not we are going to try to discourage those groups from taking up the mission of poverty relief that they have devoted themselves to, whether or not we are going to push them away and tell them they need not apply merely because they do not believe certain things that we expect them to believe. The question is whether or not we are going to lay new burdens on these groups just because they had the audacity to answer the call of the needy, whether or not we are going to push away these organizations who are endeavoring to lift lives and heal communities and build neighborhoods. The question comes down to something that President Bush said in his inaugural speech. I am paraphrasing, but President Bush asked this question of America: When we see that wounded traveler on that road to Jericho, will we step to the other side? Well, listening to the debate here today, it is clear at least a small number do want us to step to the other side. They want us to turn our gaze and chase away those who would be the good Samaritan. Time and time again, this Congress has supported the concepts and the language that are in this bill today. This Congress has supported it, President Clinton has supported it, President Bush has supported it. Now, apparently, a small group wants to destroy something that is working very well, something that so many Americans look to with admiration. They want to chase it away. This would be a terrible idea. This would slam the door on so many worthwhile projects that are lifting lives and healing neighborhoods. I desperately hope the Woolsey amendment is rejected. If this amendment is adopted, it slams the door; it chases away and sends a terrible message to so many good people and so many organizations. It would be, in my view, a travesty.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today before this house I would like to recognize ``For Those Who Have Fallen,'' a national tribute song written by Tonia Barnes (Arpke) of Clyman, Wisconsin. At a time when our brave men and women in uniform are fighting to protect freedom and democracy in the Middle East, it is important for citizens across the country to support their efforts, and remember America's fallen heroes who have secured peace in battles past. This song is an eloquent tribute to all those who sacrificed for our nation, and it is with great honor that I submit the following lyrics for the Record. Working in an office or on the beat Looking from a window, from a city street The heart of a stranger giving his all Doing what he can when he got the call. America hold your head up high The Eagle is still the pride of the sky She shed many tears today And spread her wings as if to say. For those who have fallen I will never forget The sacrifice you've given When the face of God you met For those who have fallen I will never forget. Searching through all the rubble Knowing that lives are on the line Hands that never get tired Paws, though bloody, never whine. A strong shoulder to lean on An ear listening to the horrible tale America will keep on living And our pride will always prevail. For those who have fallen I will never forget The sacrifice you've given When the face of God you met For those who have fallen I will never forget. For those who have fallen I will never forget The sacrifice you've given When the face of God you met For those who have fallen I will never forget. For those who have fallen I will never forget The sacrifice you've given When the face of God you met For those who have fallen I will never forget. For those who have fallen I will never forget.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I think there is no reason why we can not study this thoughtfully. We can look at ways of reforming the FBI to make sure it works better to protect all of the interest. I want to make sure, as the gentlewoman does, that we have that time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the author of this bill and, of course, I do for the chairman of this bill, but I must oppose this legislation. I oppose it on prison safety grounds, I oppose it on fiscal grounds, and I oppose it because I believe it will increase recidivism and crime. FPI in my view is a critical tool in our justice system. It helps us manage prison safety at a time when everyone here knows that prison populations are exploding. It helps us increase the chances for prisoners to become law-abiding successful citizens upon their release, and it does all of this without costing the taxpayers one dime. Now, FPI, Federal Prison Industries, has not been a perfect program. That is why it is being reformed and improved, and I agree that more work should be done. But this bill, the bill before us today would essentially destroy FPI and all of the benefits that it provides. As a result of recent changes, FPI has already had to lay off over 1,700 inmates. H.R. 1829 will greatly exacerbate those numbers and create a volatile, dangerous situation in our prison system. Now, as I said earlier, I oppose this bill also on fiscal grounds. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost taxpayers nearly $590 million over the next 5 years. On the other hand, FPI costs taxpayers not a dime. Seventy-three percent of the earnings from FPI goes to purchases from the private sector for raw materials, parts, and services. These contracts are with businesses all across the country, and nearly two-thirds of those are with small, female, minority, and disadvantaged businesses. These private contracts keep an estimated 5,000 private sector workers employed. Twenty percent of FPI's earnings are paid to staff. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1829, on the other hand, would cost an additional $177 million over 5 years. That is nearly $35.4 million a year just for the extra security that will be necessary to supervise prisoners who are no longer working due to the elimination of FPI. Mr. Chairman, this bill will harm prison safety. It will cost us over $100 million a year. It will cost us 5,000 private sector jobs. We should be supporting programs that will prevent recidivism. We should be supporting programs that will help secure prison and public safety. We should be supporting programs that work with small local businesses all across the country. FPI does that; H.R. 1829 does not. That is why the bill is opposed by Prison Fellowship, by the American Federation of Government Employees, and as we heard just a few moments ago, by the Fraternal Order of Police. Mr. Chairman, these are days in which we have to be looking for ways to break the cycle of crime and violence. We know what works. The work ethic works. Teaching the work ethic, reinforcing the work ethic, that is how we maximize the chances of success for prisoners upon release. We have seen it day in and day out. We know that it works. I think it is extraordinarily sad that we take up legislation today that would destroy that. That would undo the one thing that we know works.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend, the author of this bill, claimed that this bill would not hurt FPI. He said it would help Federal Prison Industries. It would strengthen it. Well, the truth of the matter is although he may believe that, he cannot say that for certain. We simply do not know. The amendment that I offer today would help us to find out. This simple amendment is grounded in common sense. It simply permits the GAO to study the effects of eliminating mandatory source requirements for Federal Prison Industries. The proscribed study will consider the effects on prison operations, public safety, inmate employment, and public and private sector employment. A similar study is already underway at the GAO, and we have been told that this study will be ready by April 2004, in 6 months. In only 6 months, we would have all of the information we need, impartial evidence, the evidence that we need to know what the effect this legislation would have on our public safety, on our prison safety, on recidivism, on prison operations, and local business. It seems to me 6 months is not too long to wait. This study will provide us with the data to determine the actual effects of eliminating the FPI mandatory source authority as this bill would do. The study is critical in my view to the proper development of any comprehensive legislative solution to the real problems that exist with FPI. Currently, FPI has a positive impact upon a number of important concerns in the justice system, concerns like prison security and correctional worker safety and victim restitution, dependent support, recidivism, hundreds of small and minority-owned businesses, not to mention the thousands of workers that partner with FPI. And last, but not least, public safety. The GAO report will assess the impact of the bill on these important areas. I believe the consideration of this legislation is premature without this analysis and review. There could be many unforeseen and unmeasured impacts as a result of this bill. The problem is no one knows for sure. It is this type of uncertainty that has caused Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship to oppose this legislation. My amendment asks for the study to be forwarded to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for review. Once we have this information, then we can act in ways that will truly reform and improve Prison Industries. There would be more than enough time in this session to take action, action that would strengthen FPI, action that would take care of abuses in FPI. Mr. Chairman, we should act on the basis of facts. We should wait a short 6 months before proceeding with legislation that could harm so many people and do so very much damage. I ask Members to vote yes for this amendment and vote yes for getting the real facts.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this legislation, H.R. 1829, said earlier that they share our vision, they share the concerns that many of us have. The proponents of this bill have claimed that this legislation, H.R. 1829 will actually strengthen FPI, Federal Prison Industries. Unfortunately, close observers of the system, like the American Federation of Government Employees and the Fraternal Order of Police, disagree. Who shall we believe? This amendment that I offer right now offers us a safe way for us to provide and to find out the answer and determine who it is that we should believe. Now, earlier it was said that my study amendment was an amendment to kill, an amendment to delay. Well, this legislation is very different. It allows us to proceed while also creating a mechanism to make sure that we do not do the damage that some have said, some fear will be done. It provides a safety valve in case this bill does not work out as its proponents claim. It would require the Attorney General to make a determination each year about whether phasing out of fiscal procurement preference has resulted in a reduction of the number of inmates who are provided employment. If the numbers are substantially lower, if the numbers are substantially lower, then the Attorney General will be required to determine whether or not this reduction poses a significant threat to prison operations or general public safety. If the Attorney General determines that this has occurred, if there is a threat to public safety, then he may postpone the phasing out for a year. It could begin again once the Attorney General has determined that it is safe to proceed. The current bill provides no mechanism for reviewing the effect of the preference phaseout. Let us understand the effect of this amendment very carefully and why it is so important. If proponents of the bill are correct in assuming that their reforms will, in fact, make FPI more competitive rather than putting it out of business as I would suggest, then the safety valve provisions in this amendment will never come into play. It will be as though this amendment was never adopted, never considered. But if the proponents are wrong, and they just might be wrong, and if our highest law enforcement official determines, as I believe, that this would present a significant risk to prison safety or public safety, then this safety valve will be critically needed. It will be terribly important. It will save lives. It will save the working conditions in prisons. It will make prison operations safer. Now, again, in the past with my previous amendment, the study amendment, it was argued that I was trying to kill H.R. 1829, to kill this legislation. I would argue that those who oppose this amendment, given that this amendment does not delay the phaseout of the mandatory preference, I would argue that any who oppose this amendment really do want to kill FPI. Again, if their claims are accurate, if their assumptions are correct, then this amendment will have no effect. But if they are wrong, as many of us fear, we will at least have some mechanism, some small way to stop this damage from occurring. I ask support for this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, the reason this amendment is drafted as it is, is we are, I think as the gentlewoman said very eloquently, treading into new territory here. What I want to do is make sure that we have an opportunity, if just by that small chance the proponents are wrong, as you and I believe that they may well be, that we have a mechanism to stop irreparable harm from being done.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, Democratic leaders said before the cameras, actually yelled before the cameras, that this war should not be politicized. This week we learned just how empty and how hypocritical those words were. Among other things, we learned of a Democratic staff memo from a Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence describing a plan to use intelligence information about the war for political points during a Presidential campaign. Mr. Speaker, we have men and women in uniform in harm's way. We have families back here who desperately miss them and fear for their safety and now we have this memo. Not everything is a political game. Not everything should be campaign fodder. Of all our committees, our intelligence committees should be campaign-free zones. I believe the American people deserve better, and I know our troops deserve better.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their great work and their contributions to this legislation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for his outstanding work on it, but most of all let me personally and publicly thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his work, because without his work, simply put, we would not be here today. I want to thank him so much for his hard work here. DNA technology is a truly amazing tool for the modern-day investigator and prosecutor. We can identify a perpetrator from one single hair. We can now indict a person by their DNA and match that code to a name at a later time. This is the great promise of DNA technology, the promise of justice. However, sadly, justice is not always timely. Too many people have had to wait years for justice. They wait in fear as their rape kits sit on a shelf untested. They wait as dangerous criminals walk free, free to strike yet again. Debbie Smith, who has been a courageous leader on this issue, went through this battle. I have worked with Mrs. Smith and heard her story numerous times. Each time I hear the passion in her voice on this topic, it encourages me and others to fight even harder to help the hundreds of thousands of victims that have DNA samples taken but have not yet found justice. Today, Debbie, you are victorious. The fact that hundreds of thousands of pieces of vital evidence essentially sit unused is outrageous. It is unacceptable. We need to get these rape kits off the shelves so they can be used to get rapists off the streets. The Debbie Smith Act is about justice being done. It is about rapists being caught, convicted with irrefutable DNA evidence and put away for a long, long time. It is about helping thousands of victims receive justice by harnessing an exciting, emerging technology. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a critical part of restoring the public's faith in our justice system.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from Washington on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, for official business. As a result, I was not recorded for rollcall votes No. 569, No. 570, No. 571, No. 572 and No. 573. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 569, ``aye'' on No. 570 and no on rollcalls No. 571, No. 572 and No. 573.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I stand in strong support of this resolution, H.R. 414 and urge its immediate passage. The previous speaker, my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), said in Wisconsin we have lost over 77,000 manufacturing jobs in just the last 3 years. We have suffered the loss of some of our most distinguished, some of our oldest companies. We have thrown small communities into turmoil. We have created an uncertain future for too many families. I think it is time for us to fight back. There are a lot of factors that have led to the loss of manufacturing jobs, anticompetitive tax policies, burden of regulation. We have to address all of those. But better trade policies, more fair trade policies, are clearly something we need to do. Let us make no mistake, the passage of this resolution is not a substitute for taking definitive steps to level the playing field on trade. However, this resolution is a growing sign, a growing recognition, that there is a problem. I think it does create a higher profile for this issue. I think it lets the Chinese know that we are serious in protecting our economy and protecting manufacturing jobs; that we will not sit by as they ignore their long-term obligations. It is long past time, long past time, for China to follow through on its commitments. Getting China to reform its currency and trade policies is going to require a full court press that includes more than just Congress. That is why I want to commend the Bush administration for the efforts they have made recently. I know that President Bush has taken this message to China. I know that Secretary Evans is currently in China further driving home this point. I hope the Secretary will use this vote today as leverage in his negotiations. It shows that our Congress is unified in saying that we will take steps to protect our economy. This is only a first step, though. If China does not comply with its WTO obligations, we need to do much more. I will call on this body, if they do not follow through, I will call on this body to consider legislative efforts like those that I have authored with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), called the China Act. We do need to take steps. Today is a good start.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman both for yielding time and for his kind remarks. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this bill that we are debating tonight spends a lot of money. There is no doubt that the costs of war are high. There is no doubt that the costs of reconstruction are high. But I think the point we need to remember is that the costs of inaction, the costs of leaving Iraq behind are far greater and, more importantly, the costs of failing to give our troops what they need as quickly as possible, those costs are absolutely unacceptable. Some here tonight will try to break the package apart and make a false distinction, a distinction between military assistance and reconstruction assistance. They claim they support one but not the other, and they will try to put strings on one and not the other. Mr. Chairman, that approach is wrong and what is more, it is dangerously wrong. The mission in Iraq from a military perspective will only end when freedom and democracy have begun to take root, when the economy is starting to move, when there is some semblance of hope restored into Iraq. Those goals collectively represent an antidote to terrorism. The reconstruction dollars that we are talking about tonight, in my view, will help us achieve those goals and achieve them much more quickly. Therefore, the reconstruction dollars will bring about final victory to Iraq more quickly, they will bring our mission to a close and just as importantly, of course, to everyone back home, they will bring our troops back safe and sound. On the other hand, failing to approve reconstruction dollars or hamstringing our ability to use it will extend the mission. It will delay it. It will lengthen the time line. Worse yet, it will, in my view, weaken the mission. It will foster the fear that America will withdraw or walk away, a fear that is very real to everyday Iraqis, a fear that will only increase despair and steal hope from them at the very time when hope is just beginning to appear. It will make the mission of our troops all that much more dangerous. Iraq has become, in my view, the central battle in the war against terrorism. We have received many reports of terrorists entering Iraq from countries throughout the region. We must remember that they are entering Iraq not because we are failing, but because we are winning, because we are succeeding. This is the time we must push on, we must build on that mission, we must give our diplomats, we must give our soldiers, we must give the leaders the tools and the resources they need to finish this job. To fail to give this money to our troops, to fail to give money to reconstruction that they are overseeing would strengthen the hands of those who want us to fail. We must live up to our responsibilities. We must not abandon the Iraqis. We must not abandon our troops. I strongly support this supplemental. It is critically important, and it is important we get it done now.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today before this house I'd like to recognize and honor the Marinette Jaycees as they celebrate fifty years of dedicated service to the Marinette community. Since their establishment in 1920, the United States Jaycees have helped thousands of young men and women develop personal and leadership skills through community service. Their positive presence across the country has touched millions of lives, and furthered the causes of some of our nation's most noble organizations. For fifty years the Marinette Jaycees have carried on that tradition of service and leadership in northeast Wisconsin. They've organized countless volunteer activities, given young folks an opportunity to learn more about business and government, and fostered a greater since of pride in their community. There's no question, Marinette is a better place because of their efforts. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and pleasure to recognize today the Marinette Jaycees on their 50th anniversary. On behalf of my constituents, we say thank you, and we wish them another fifty years of overwhelming success.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I congratulate him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for this piece of legislation. The previous speaker asked rhetorically what does this bill do? By spurring investment in America's charities, this bill will help lift lives and heal neighborhoods. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I would like to talk about a very specific provision in this bill because this bill also rightly points to a problem that we have in charitable giving, one that Congress cannot by itself solve. As section 303 of this bill points out, many of our Nation's largest foundations have a bias against giving to the community of faith. As so many people have noted, every day all across America, faith-based organizations help people, help them recover from drug and alcohol addiction, provide food and shelter to the homeless, teach people skills that they need to move from poverty to productivity, and so much more. And yet foundations, especially corporate foundations, will not give help to these groups. Corporate foundations give roughly $2 billion a year to charities, but a mere fraction of that goes to the community of faith. Of the ten largest corporations in America, six have restrictions either banning or greatly limiting contributions to faith-based organizations and not one of them gives more than 5 percent of its donations to these groups. The leading 1,000 foundations in America have targeted just 2.3 percent of their grants to faith-based organizations. The leading 100 have given just 1.5 percent. Shame on them. They are missing a chance to do so much good. Let us hope that the public, let us hope that shareholders demand a change. This legislation shines a spotlight on this problem and encourages them to rethink their restrictions. It is time for us to reach out. It is time for corporate America to reach out to the community of faith. There are so many needs and so many opportunities. There is so much good that we can do if corporate America, if foundations, if we all reach out and partner with those who are on the frontlines each and every day. I am proud to support this legislation. I think this is going to make a historic difference, and once again, I congratulate the authors.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I unfortunately missed a vote because I was unavoidably detained elsewhere in the Capitol. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 493, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on the Tax Relief, Simplification and Equity Act.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, after a review of the votes from July 25, 2003, I noticed I inadvertently voted against the Toomey amendment to H.R. 2859 (Rollcall No. 458). That was a mistake on my part due to my distraction with other legislative business during that particular series of votes. I wish to state for the record that I support the Toomey amendment and wish to be recorded as voting ``aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this body must understand that by giving itself a pay hike today, it sends a message to the American people that the Congress is woefully out of touch. In my state, the economy has serious problems. People are losing their jobs. Families are too worried about whether there's going to be another paycheck at all to even think about when a raise might be coming. This pay boost is a terrible idea, it's irresponsible, and it's a slap in the face of taxpayers during this very tough time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2989, the Transportation-Treasury-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2004. First, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for including $20 million for the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility in Houston, Texas. Houston's four million residents are served by Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston Hobby Airport, and Ellington Field. Together they form one of North America's largest public airport systems and position Houston as the international gateway to the south central United States. Unfortunately, the current TRACON facility was constructed in the late 1960's and is inadequate to meet the needs at these three airports. The facility is in a low lying area which floods often, disrupting air traffic, and cannot be expanded to provide the airspace capacity needed to achieve the full benefits of the additional runway capacity expected to be online at Bush Intercontinental in spring 2004. Expedited construction of the new TRACON is necessary to realize the 36 percent capacity increase identified in the FAA Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). The current state of the Houston TRACON does not fit its place as a major hub in a modern air traffic control system. The $20 million included in this legislation is an important first step that will help create a new facility in a timely manner. This funding will help resolve an urgent air traffic control facility problem for the greater Houston, Texas area. I am also happy to see that, on top of the East End Rail Task Force study on rail and mobility conditions completed in February 2003 and the Harris County/Port of Houston's $600,000 ongoing county-wide study, there is $1 million in the House Transportation Appropriations bill for a Freight Rail Transportation Corridor and Urban Mobility Program for Harris County. I worked with my Texas colleague Tom DeLay on this issue, and am glad that the appropriators saw fit to include this important project. The goal is to expand the work of the East End study to the entire rail network of Harris County in order to initiate a comprehensive approach to rail system rationalization, addressing the regional issues associated with train routing, rail traffic levels, yard operations, and through-traffic versus local service to quantify the safety and mobility impact they have on residents. Researchers on this project will work with a public-private partnership to oversee the direction and scope of work. The partnership will include public officials, the Port of Houston, residents, and representatives of Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads. A consensus approach is needed because a major freight rail and mobility plan will take significant amounts of federal, local, and private sources of investment to complete. Such freight rail reorganization plans have been successfully done for LA-Long Beach, CA, Reno, NV, and one was recently announced for Chicago, IL. Again, Mr. Chairman, these are important projects for my area, and I am glad to see that they were included in this important bill. I'd like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this committee for their hard work.