Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Green of Texas

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Green of Texas

Amendment No. 2: In the matter relating to ``Administration

for Children and Families--low-income home energy

assistance'', after the second dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $200,000,000), to remain available

until expended''.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for allowing me to talk on this rule, but mainly talk about a rule that will come up in a few minutes.

Madam Speaker, a critical part of the legislative process is to be able to amend legislation so that we can improve it. The rule on Medicare prescription drugs does not allow us to do that. The continued efforts by the leadership of the House to stifle debate on this issue can no longer be tolerated.

Although the rule does allow a substitute, which is better than last year, which I appreciate, there are so many other important amendments that should be debated on the floor on this, one of the most important issues this Congress will consider this year, this prescription drug package for our senior citizens.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up this legislation for 3 days last week, the Democratic side offered dozens of amendments that would significantly improve the legislation. Several of these amendments were very close or tie votes, including one amendment that I offered to close that gap in coverage that is part of the so-called prescription drug benefit plan. That would close that doughnut hole that our seniors are going to fall into under the majority Republican plan. But the Committee on Rules would not let us offer these same amendments, amendments which should have been offered and may have passed on this floor.

One amendment was discussed by my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio, regarding a provision in this bill that prohibits the Health and Human Services Secretary from negotiating for cheaper prices for our seniors. That is just wrong. We do not prohibit the VA from doing it. We do not prohibit our States from doing it. In fact, the Committee on Energy and Commerce bill that passed allowed States to do that; yet we are saying that the Federal Government cannot get cheaper prices for our seniors. That amendment should be on this floor.

Madam Speaker, it is far too important for us to rush a debate on a prescription drug benefit for seniors and only have 1 day. The Senate has been debating this bill for the past 2 weeks, but in the House we are going to do this and rush it through in one afternoon. That is not the way our forefathers designed this House to legislate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule when it comes up and obviously to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, following the gentleman from North Carolina, my good friend, it is frustrating because I feel the same thing, that we were given a plan and even though we spent 3 days and a long night debating it in committee we did not really get to legislate because we really had a plan given to us and it was either take it or leave it. But this is the most important issue that we will consider this year not only for our seniors but for everyone. I know a lot of my colleagues feel that we should support any legislation because it is a step in the right direction or maybe it is like the Senate bill.

This is not the Senate bill. The Senate has a better idea. It is not as good as I would like, but it is better than what we have on the floor today.

This legislation would require Medicare to move to a competitive program by 2010. A lot of different terms are used to describe the model in this bill, whether it is called defined contribution, voucher, premium support, or something else, but it abolishes Medicare as we know it. The bottom line is it is privatization of Medicare. It will take the responsibility of providing meaningful, affordable, quality health insurance away from the government, like 1965, and shift the burden onto the shoulders of our seniors. The legislation relies entirely on private insurance plans to provide drug benefits for seniors. No government fall-back plan, no safety nets for seniors living in areas where drug plans do not offer coverage. It places blind faith in private drug plans that they will sign people up. That is the ultimate in faith-based policy making. There is a huge gap in this coverage that will disproportionately hurt individuals who need drug coverage. Those with the highest drug costs, they will fall into this doughnut hole. Once one has a little over $3,000 a year up to a little over $5,000, they fall in this hole.

I talked to a senior this evening who has a little over $300 a month in prescription drug cost. They will still pay their $35 plus a month, but they will not get one dime of benefits because they will be in this doughnut hole.

The ultimate anti-competitive part is that this bill prohibits the Secretary from negotiating lower drug costs. The VA does it, Medicare does it, private insurance does it, but we are prohibiting in this bill the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reduce costs for our seniors. That is why it is outrageous.

The substitute, on the other hand, is the kind of benefit that seniors support. It is affordable, comprehensive, and will actually help drive down the costs of prescription drugs.

Yes, it's more expensive than the base bill, but you cannot provide a prescription drug benefit on the cheap.

Finally, there's one issue that I'd like to raise about a provision that would limit the ability of physicians to refer patients to specialty hospitals in which they have a financial interest.

There is language in the Senate bill which could hurt some innovative practices that are occurring in specialty hospitals.

Patients need access to a broad range of facilities, and should be able to choose a hospital that has expertise in their specific health needs.

I know that some have suggested limiting the percentage profit that physicians can enjoy under these arrangements, or to limit the percentage of physician ownership and I hope that both sides can sit down and reach a solution to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, after 14 years as president of the Texas AFL-CIO, Joe Gunn has announced that he will retire. I rise today to congratulate Joe and to wish him well in his retirement.

Joe Gunn has actively served the workers of the State of Texas for many years.

He went to work for Southwestern Bell in 1949 and joined the Communications Workers of America, Local 6222 on the same day. During his 22 years with Southwestern Bell, Joe spent 11 years in full-time service to Local 6222.

Joe ran for job steward and was easily elected. Within a very short time, he ran for Chief Steward and was again elected. Always looking for more challenges, Joe ran for and was elected first as a vice president and then as president of Local 6222. That is when I met Joe in 1972.

In a short time, Joe was elected and served as a vice president and as the president of the Harris County AFL-CIO.

In January, 1979, Joe was elected as the secretary-treasurer of the Texas AFL-CIO. He served in this capacity until his election as president on July 29, 1989.

But Joe's life has involved more than the CWA or the AFL-CIO. Joe also served for seven years as a Commissioner on the Texas Employment Commission, the precursor to the Texas Workforce Commission. He was first appointed to this position by former Governor Dolph Briscoe.

He has also served his community by holding such positions as vice president of the Harris County United Way, the Houston Council Boy Scouts Executive Council,and youth director of his church.

Joe is married to Dorothy Ann Taylor Gunn. They have ten children, six of which were foster children. He and his wife attend the United Methodist Church in Austin.

Joe Gunn never forgot that his purpose was to improve the working conditions of all Texans. He has always represented workers and has worked tirelessly for a safe workplace, fair pay and respect for all employees, union and non-union.

He is a legend and a force in Texas politics and will not be forgotten or easily replaced.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Joe Gunn for his many years of service and to wish him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003.

This legislation aims to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to band together to increase their purchasing power and negotiate lower rates for health insurance.

I know that our small businesses are struggling with their health insurance costs. With double-digit increases in premiums, Madam Speaker, many small businesses simply cannot afford to continue to provide coverage for their employees. And while I support measures to make health insurance more affordable, I have concerns that this legislation would not achieve that end. In fact, studies by both the Congressional Budget Office and RAND have indicated that existing AHPs have not reduced insurance costs for participants.

I also have concerns about this legislation because it would exempt AHPs from state insurance regulations that protect patients and families.

In Texas, health plans are required to cover maternity care, immunizations for children, mammography breast cancer screening, diabetes treatments and supplies, and certain mental health services. H.R. 660 would exempt AHPs from covering these vital services.

I don't think that small businesses and trade associations should have to sacrifice quality in order to afford their health insurance. By taking away these vital patient protections, the policies purchased under AHPs would be worth little more than the paper they are printed on.

The Kind/Andrews amendment, however, corrects many of these concerns by allowing small businesses to purchase insurance through a Small Employees Health Benefit Plan, similar to the FEHBP. This system would ensure that quality of health plans are protected, that low income employees have assistance to purchase policies, and that the smallest of small businesses get the additional assistance they need.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kind/Andrews alternative, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have so much to be proud of in our country: our young people serving in the military, protecting our Nation, our law enforcement working long hours to make us safe. We can even celebrate last night the Houston Astros winning a no-hitter against the New York Yankees with six pitchers.

What we cannot be proud of and what bothers many Americans is we have had three different congressional committee members ask the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to release all the information and audiotapes concerning the use of our Federal law enforcement to track Texas legislators. This sounds like an abuse of authority, and it smells.

Our law enforcement should not be used for partisan political purposes. Release these tapes and let the American people decide who is wasting our law enforcement's time, when they should be protecting our Nation, looking for Texas legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1320, and I would like to thank Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Markey, Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell, the dean of the House, for the opportunity to work with them on this beneficial legislation, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

I am pleased that our House leadership has moved this bill to the floor in a timely manner. This is good, consensus legislation.

The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act is a reasonable, effective effort to allow American consumers to more quickly benefit from the ambitious rollout of wireless technologies that America's wireless industry is planning in the near future.

By freeing up federal spectrum for the market, consumers who are coming to depend on mobile communications will greatly benefit.

Wireless technology increases economic efficiency and productivity, increases convenience and connectivity for individuals and families, and is ready to be a major growth sector of the technology economy.

I would like to point out some key aspects of this bill that make it deserving of support by all in this House. Number 1 is filling national security needs.

This bill has a sustainable and predictable funding mechanism to ensure DOD does not have to cut corners with their communications.

Robust communications are especially critical to our modern military's ability to get its job done, and DOD, and all other federal agencies should be fully, 100 percent compensated for spectrum relocation costs.

Number two is the Congressional oversight of the spectrum auction and relocation process to be led by the Commerce Committee and the GAO.

While the Department of Defense may be the most essential federal agency and one with a great tradition of heroism and honor--waste, fraud, and abuse do occur there. That is no particular criticism of DOD, just the federal government in general.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass this consensus legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will restore equity in the taxation of political campaign committees.

Currently, the tax code treats income in federal political campaign committees the same as corporate income. This allows candidates for congressional office to pay campaign taxes on a graduated rate scale, offering us significant tax benefits.

Specifically, we pay a 15 percent tax rate on the first $50,000 of income in our campaign accounts. Income in our accounts between $50,001 and $75,000 is taxed at 25 percent, and income between $75,001 and $10 million is taxed at 34 percent. Only when our campaign accounts boast over $10 million are we subjected to a 35 percent tax rate.

Mr. Speaker, each of us in this chamber can attest to the ridiculously high amount of money that we must raise in order to run a formidable campaign for Congress. However, I doubt that many of us actually reach that $10 million threshold and pay a 35 percent tax rate on the money in our campaign accounts.

Unfortunately, our colleagues in state legislatures across the country aren't as fortunate. As Texas State Senator Jon Lindsay pointed out to us in the Texas Delegation, every dollar in his campaign account is taxed at a flat 35 percent rate. In fact, only candidates for Congress are able to enjoy this graduated tax schedule.

To correct this inequity in our tax code, I am introducing legislation today to amend the Internal Revenue Code and mandate that state political campaign committees are taxed in the same manner as our federal campaign committees.

Joining me in this effort to ensure that the tax code treats our state legislators fairly is the entire Democratic wing of the Texas delegation: Representative Chris Bell, Representative Lloyd Doggett, Representative Chet Edwards, Representative Martin Frost, Representative Charles Gonzalez, Representative Ralph Hall, Representative Ruben Hinojosa, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Representative Nick Lampson, Representative Solomon P. Ortiz, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Representative Ciro Rodriguez, Representative Max Sandlin, Representative Charles Stenholm, and Representative Jim Turner.

My thanks goes out to each of them for their support, as well as to Senator Lindsay for bringing this matter to our attention. I urge my fellow colleagues to co-sponsor this bill and show their support for the state legislators who work hard representing them back home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the ranking member, my neighbor from Houston. I am really happy that H.R. 1954 is up today.

There is no more powerful or honorable way to serve our country than in our Armed Forces. Our military men and women are willing to put their lives on the line to defend freedom and democracy. This type of service is remarkable, particularly for our non-native born.

We have legal permanent residents who volunteer, and I have some who were actually drafted in World War II, Korea, and the Vietnam War who deserve their citizenship. We have worked with them to get them through the system with INS to get their citizenship, but this bill just gives us a statute that will make it work.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman and I thank all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing this. We had more than 300,000 Mexican Americans that served in our Armed Forces just in World War II. I have constituents whom I have talked to who served and who were told they would get their citizenship, but they did not. Again, that is our constituent work, working together, but this makes it so much easier.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.

Legal Permanent Residents who volunteer in our U.S. Armed Forces demonstrate the highest level of patriotism and service to our country.

They serve, not out of obligation or a sense of duty to their homeland, but because they have embraced everything that America stands for.

These individuals are willing to risk their own lives, so that their children and grandchildren can grow up as citizens of this great land.

Legal permanent residents have a long history of serving our country and protecting our democracy.

More than 300,000 Mexican Americans served in the armed forces during World War II. Most enlisted in the army, and more Hispanics served in combat divisions than any other ethnic group.

Of the fourteen Texans awarded the Medal of Honor during WWII, five were Mexican Americans. By the end of the war, seventeen Mexican Americans had earned the Medal of Honor. Five were awarded posthumously.

Today, immigrants continue to play an important role in the United States military.

As of February 2003, more than 37,000 people in active duty status in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines were non-citizens.

During our war with Iraq some of the first fallen soldiers were immigrants who were not naturalized citizens. The least we can do for these individuals--who are willing to serve in ways that many American born individuals aren't--is to recognize them as citizens.

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will allow immigrant service men and women who have risked death--and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice--to come a step closer to fulfilling the American Dream by giving them the opportunity to become a naturalized citizen.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 and grant citizenship to non-citizen immigrants who have honorably served in our military.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposing H.R. 760 and supporting the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 760, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003.

This is always an ugly and difficult debate. I am not comfortable with the notion of a pregnancy being terminated when a woman is in the last trimester.

I doubt that many people believe a woman who is eight months pregnant should be able to just change her mind and terminate the pregnancy. And I really don't believe that that situation happens.

But there are times when late term abortions are necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, or to save the fetus from undue pain and suffering due to irreversible birth defects.

In those cases, we should make sure that women have access to safe, appropriate medical procedures.

Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today is almost identical to a Nebraska law that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.

In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court found that the Nebraska law outlaws several procedures, including the safest and most commonly used method for performing pre-viability second trimester abortions.

Second, the Court ruled that any ban on methods of abortion must provide an exception for women's health, and also struck down the Nebraska law for failing to include such an exception.

H.R. 760 continues to flout the Supreme Court's rulings by continuing to ban certain procedures, and failing to protect the life of the mother.

If we are serious about banning truly late-term abortions, than we should do what Texas did.

My home state has a law which says that ``No abortion may be performed in the third trimester on a viable fetus unless necessary to preserve the woman's life or prevent a ``substantial risk of serious impairment'' to her physical or mental health or if the fetus has a severe and irreversible abnormality.''

I supported this law when it passed the State Legislature, and support the Hoyer-Greenwood Amendment being offered today, which provides similar protections for women facing this awful choice.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 760, and instead support the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which is similar to common sense Texas law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, my New York colleague. He and I both came to Congress together.

I rise in support of and cosponsor this resolution which proposes an amendment to the Constitution allowing Congress to ban the desecration of our an American flag. You can speak your mind, but do not burn our flag.

I am a strong supporter of our first amendment rights to the freedom of expression. However, we do have limits. If I burn my car, protesting the auto maker, I am fine. If I burn a U.S. dollar, it is illegal.

For instance, court-made law restricts our freedom of speech as limited by the example given in law school classes about not screaming fire in a theater. That is court-made law that restricts my freedom of speech.

What we are trying to do today with this amendment is similar. We want the authority to enact legislation to say that desecration or burning the symbol of our country is unjust, just as yelling fire in a crowded theater is unjust.

A hallowed symbol like our flag deserves to be respected and protected as a national treasure. Our flag represents a principle our Nation was founded on and many people have given their lives for. I believe it should be afforded the maximum protection we can give it legislatively.

For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my Texas colleague's resolution expressing profound sorrow on the occasion of the death of State Representative Irma Rangel. On March 18, 2003, the Nation lost a leader, Texas lost a hero, and I lost a friend.

Irma was a veterans of the Texas House of Representatives, having been first elected in 1976. She was the first Mexican-American woman elected to the House and I was privileged to work and serve with Irma for almost 10 years.

She was a vocal proponent of higher education and services for the poor. During her 13 sessions in the House, Rangel spent most of her time and energy on minority and educational issues. She knew her issues, and she knew how to overcome any obstacle.

In response to the Hopwood v. Texas decision, which ended affirmative action at all Texas state colleges and universities, Irma sponsored the 10 percent law, which grants admission to State colleges and universities to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class.

Irma grew up in Kingsville. She was the daughter of a man who picked cotton, learned to read and write on his own and later owned two barbershops and several other businesses.

She taught for 14 years in schools in Robstown and Alice, in Venezuela and in Menlo Park, CA. In the later 1960s, Irma decided to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming an attorney. She received her law degree from St Mary's University School of Law and was admitted to the Texas Bar in 1969.

Irma worked as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Adrian A Spears of San Antonio, who was the chief justice for the Western District of Texas.

She also worked as an assistant district attorney in Corpus Christi before returning to her hometown in 1973 to open her own law practice.

Irma was inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame in 1994. She also received the Legislator of the Year award from the Mexican American Bar Association of Texas, the Women's Political Caucus' Texas Mexican-American Woman of the Year in 1979, the Unsung Heroines Award in 1991 from the Women's Advocacy Project, the Latina Lawyer of the Year from the Hispanic National Bar Association and the Texas Woman of the Century from the Women's Chamber of Commerce of Texas.

She the first Hispanic in the state to receive the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award from the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the profession.

Irma touched the lives of all those who were fortunate enough to know her. Her absence leaves a big hole in the Texas Legislature and in our hearts.

Our thoughts and prayers are with her sister, Herminia Rangel Henderson of Kingsville.

I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting from an editorial in the Houston Chronicle shortly after the announcement of her death: ``Irma Rangel was small in stature, but she was always a large force in the Legislature for all those underserved by government and needing help. She was a trailblazer with a strong voice for many in Texas who had been unheard.''

Irma was a trailblazer. The State of Texas is a much better place because of her work. She will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2003. This common-sense legislation will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes are diagnosed and treated as soon as possible.

Diabetes is a serious, debilitating chronic illness that afflicts more than 17 million Americans, including 7 million Medicare beneficiaries. This sometimes silent disease causes many serious complications, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, and lower limb amputation. Unfortunately, more than one-third of people with diabetes won't realize it until they develop one of its deadly complications.

Diabetes imposes an enormous financial burden on our health care system. More than 25 percent of the Medicare budget is currently devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. Congress recognized the need to address this problem when it required Medicare coverage of blood-glucose monitors and diabetes education services in the Balanced Budget Act. While this was a positive development in our fight against diabetes, it has done little to help us diagnose and treat the 2.3 million seniors who do not realize they have diabetes, or the 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have pre-diabetes, a condition which, if left untreated, will develop into diabetes.

While diabetes is sometimes a silent disease, the risk factors are often obvious. Diabetes is prevalent among individuals who are overweight, aging, and lead a sedentary lifestyle. Other health conditions, such as gestational diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension often lead to diabetes. It is also more common in certain racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, and certain Native Americans.

Currently, Medicare does not cover diabetes screening, even if a patient has some of these risk factors. We must strengthen the Medicare program to ensure that individuals get treatment before it is too late. By testing high-risk individuals, we will be able to diagnose and treat individuals earlier on, and subsequently prevent many complications. Studies have shown that people with pre-diabetes can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes by up to 58 percent through lifestyle interventions, including modest weight loss and increased physical activity.

That is why I am introducing this legislation, which would require Medicare to cover diabetes screening under Part B. Diagnosing diabetes and pre-diabetes through testing would improve the lives of our Nation's seniors and prevent an increase over the already huge amount of Medicare budget devoted to seniors with diabetes. In addition to improving the health and quality of life for millions of Americans, extending coverage to cover simple testing would save Medicare money in the long run by lowering the incidence of complications.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.

There is no doubt that sub-Saharan Africa is in the midst of a crisis because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Although only 10 percent of the world's population resides in this area, it is home to more than 70 percent of individuals infected by HIV/AIDS. According to the United Nations, 29.4 million adults and children are infected with the HIV virus in the region, including 3 million children under the age of 15.

Although HIV/AIDS has become a treatable disease here in the United States, the public health infrastructure in Africa is ill-equipped to deal with this pandemic. This is evidenced by the fact that, of the 4 million individuals who have reached an advanced stage of the disease, only 50,000 individuals are receiving anti-retroviral treatment.

This problem is compounded by the increased spread of comorbidities such as tuberculosis and malaria. Tuberculosis is a leading cause of death for individuals with HIV/AIDS, causing one out of every three deaths for individuals with HIV/AIDS. Incidences of malaria have increased dramatically in recent years due to resistance of the malaria parasite to once effective drugs, and increasing resistance of mosquitoes to insecticides. The World Health Organization estimates between 300 million and 500 million new cases of malaria each year.

That is why this legislation is so important. This measure makes a substantial investment in our Nation's efforts to help Africa combat this horrible epidemic. The legislation provides up to $1 billion specifically for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria in 2004--a key multilateral mechanism for expanding prevention and treatment. It also allows the U.S. share of total contributions to the Global Fund of up to 33 percent, which solidifies our country's leadership and commitment to eradicating these diseases worldwide.

This legislation is carefully crafted, bipartisan, and will be truly effective in our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I applaud the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee for their work on this important legislation.