Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2003. This important legislation will authorize critical flood control projects across the country, including authorizing a project for Halls Bayou to be constructed by the local sponsor and reimbursed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Located in a 42-square-mile watershed in North Central Harris County, Halls Bayou is already an authorized project, but this bill allows for Halls Bayou work to be done more quickly and with more local input, which is what my constituents want.

After Halls Bayou is added as a Section 211(f) project under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the local sponsor will be able to pursue the General Reevaluation Review and identify a Federal project that will protect homes and businesses from the risk of flooding.

The local sponsor has already constructed a detention area in the Halls Bayou watershed at Keith. Weiss Park, but a full Federal project is urgently needed. We are also acquiring other areas for detention in anticipation of the new authorization for Halls Bayou.

Back in 2001 Tropical Storm Allison flooded almost 13,000 homes in the Halls Bayou watershed, a tributary of Greens Bayou, which saw another 15,000 homes flooded. Recently Hurricane Isabel showed the Nation the damage one of these storms can do, even to the most developed, advanced nation in the world. And often, it is not the wind that is the problem, it is the water. Isabel showed why Federal flood control projects are needed more than ever in our country.

Clearly the sooner this legislation is approved, the better for my constituents. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Costello, Texans Nick Lampson and Eddie Bernice Johnson, and to my friend Bob Menendez for their work getting this bill together and looking out for the critical flood control needs of Harris County.

Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves the support of the full House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the state of our ailing economy. The administration recently announced that it is requesting $87 billion from Congress to fund the war and rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq's infrastructure and the economy. This is in addition to the $79 billion that Congress made available for these efforts last spring.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with fighting the war against terrorism, whether it is in Iraq or in Afghanistan, but I am wondering where the funding is to rebuild our own economy.

Just put this $87 billion in context for those in the Chamber and for our

constituents at home, $87 billion is more than our government spends on any domestic agency, with the exception of the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. With this request, we will spend more rebuilding Iraq than we will spend rebuilding crumbling American roads and bridges. We will spend more in Iraq than we spend on rebuilding outdated schools where our children are educated. In fact, we will spend more rebuilding Iraq than President Lyndon Johnson spent to fund the entire Federal Government in his first year in office, and that was the first year of our Great Society. My colleagues on the Republican side talk about how bad it was; well, we are actually spending more in Iraq than we were in the first year of the Great Society.

While this administration is focused like a laser beam on Iraq, and I agree with some of that, we are falling asleep at the wheel while driving our economy. Quite frankly, our economy is swerving and is heading for a wreck. If you have lost your job or cashed your last unemployment check, you already know you are in a wreck.

Mr. Speaker, we have presided over the largest fiscal reversal in history by turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $3.3 trillion deficit. Under this administration's economic leadership, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs, and these jobs will not return, if you read the business sections of our major dailies. The gross domestic product growth has averaged 1.6 percent, and real business investment has fallen to 10.4 percent.

Now, if we show these figures to the administration, we will hear their cries of recession and economic swings. Well, this country has weathered recessions before, but these figures do not represent just any recession. These figures represent the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. That is right, the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.

This administration has the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover presided over the Great Depression. And as much as this administration hates to admit it, tax cuts are not the answer to every economic problem. Oh, they promised us that cutting taxes would ease the burden on businesses and pave the way for job creation. Well, since the President took office, we have had three major tax cuts and lost 3.2 million jobs. That is over a million jobs lost for each tax cut. And this Congress, by the way, enacted those tax cuts.

This country has already lost 437,000 jobs this year, raising our unemployment levels to 6.1 percent. Factory employment in this country has declined in every single month for the last 3 years. In fact, of the 3.2 million jobs lost under this administration, 2.7 of them are manufacturing jobs. And over 150,000 of those manufacturing jobs come from my home State of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor of representing the 29th District of Texas, and it is the third most blue-collar district in the country, according to the last census. These good-paying jobs belonged to my constituents and provided them with a livable wage and a good chance to achieve the American dream. In 1950, manufacturing jobs represented one-third of our country's labor market. Today they represent one-tenth. Part of this country's economic problem is it does not make anything anymore. It is great to be the information economy, but it is not great if you do not have anything to have any information about. Our push for free trade has pushed our products and our jobs right out of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Port of Houston, the second largest port in our country. The port has been an economic boon for both the city of Houston and Texas and our region. But for the sake of our country, I just wish those ships going out of the port were as full as when they come in.

Mr. Speaker, our country is in a dire economic situation. It does not take too much to go out and listen to our constituents to know that. Like my colleagues, I listened intently when the President recently talked about the need for unity and sacrifice, and I think he is right. But our country's economy and unemployed workers have sacrificed enough. It is high time that this administration made some sacrifices and the tough decisions necessary to start putting this country and all of our people first.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act.

My opposition stems not from wanting to tax the Internet access or to impose dual taxes on e-commerce. I oppose the bill because it does not follow the precedent set by previous Internet tax moratorium legislation in holding harmless States that have enacted access taxes previous to 1998.

This bill would have what I consider an enormous impact on the State of Texas. The effect of this bill would be felt as early as November of this year. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the fiscal crises that our States are currently finding themselves in, including the State of Texas.

The State of Texas is one of those States facing a budget problem, and I cannot support legislation that would take away $45 million in annual revenue in our State, that my State has been depending on for the last 5 years. The $45 million in funds are needed for critical State programs, such as children's health care. Our last legislative session, because of our budget problem, dropped 175,000 children off of children's health care. So what are we going to do about taking a hit from this, drop even more children?

My State is not the only one. Connecticut would lose $15 million; Ohio, $12 million; Wisconsin, $7.5 million; Tennessee, $4 million; North Dakota, $2.5 million; South Dakota, $1.7 million; and New Mexico, $1 million.

I oppose the bill for procedural reasons, because I hoped to be able to consider this under an open rule that would allow Members from these States adversely affected by the grandfathering provision to allow amendments to protect their State laws. Without that opportunity, I have no choice but to vote in the best interests of my own State, as I assume a lot of other Members from States losing money will, and, again, taking away the States' ability to do it, to tax what they have already done.

I guess my frustration is that in Texas we in 1999 changed our taxes to where everything under $25 is exempt for your access to Internet service. But for some reason we still have State taxes and Federal taxes on access to our telephones.

On the point I am concerned about, I hope we can adopt the 3-year extension language that is similar to the Senate bill so that we can continue to hold harmless those States that are depending on this crucial revenue, particularly in this time of budget shortfalls and the disaster that is happening to some of our State programs because of State budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will allow our nation's seniors to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Many seniors prefer to remain active in their retirement, even though they may have chosen to leave their career jobs. Some seniors find second careers later in life which enrich their lives and supplement their income.

Unfortunately, the Social Security Earnings Test prohibited these individuals from receiving full Social Security benefits if their incomes exceeded a certain amount. The earnings test was especially unfair for seniors who relied on that additional income to supplement their Social Security checks, because they would, in effect, lose half of their Social Security benefit.

Recognizing the unfairness of this situation, the Congress passed, and on April 7, 2000, President Clinton signed H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This law eliminated the Social Security earnings test for recipients between the ``full retirement age'' (currently age 65 and eight months) and age 70.

While this law was a great victory for seniors who chose to work once they reached retirement age, it does not eliminate the earnings test for seniors who choose to retire early at age 62. These individuals, who might also rely on employment income to supplement their Social Security checks, are simply out of luck.

This situation unfairly penalizes many seniors who need to continue to work after they reach retirement age. The Bureau of Labor Services compiled an experimental Consumer Price Index for the elderly, which found that the prices of goods bought by the general public rose by 66.5 percent, while it rose by 72.6 percent for seniors. This difference of over six percent is significant for someone living on a fixed income, as most seniors do. By penalizing individuals who work in addition to receiving Social Security benefits, we are hurting those most in need of assistance. Seniors should not be forced to choose between their Social Security benefits and earned income.

Additionally, forcing seniors to leave the workforce early signifies a valuable loss to our country in terms of skilled and experienced workers. More than ever America is in need of skilled workers. We should be encouraging these individuals to continue contributing to our economy through their tax dollars, and the additional goods they can consume thanks to their added income.

That is why I am introducing the Social Security Earnings Test Repeal Act of 2003. This legislation would amend title II of the Social Security Act by removing the limitation on the amount of outside income which an individual may earn while receiving benefits under such title.

Social Security is a right earned by workers through their hard work. The Social Security Earnings Test Repeal Act of 2003 will allow retirees to rejoin the workforce without the fear of a loss of benefits. We have no right to forbid or difficult someone's desire to work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall vote 503 on H.R. 2658, the motion to close the conference. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Michaud motion to instruct conferees on the Medicare prescription drug bill.

This motion remedies two of the most controversial provisions of the House bill by striking provisions of the bill which would require privatization of the Medicare program by 2010, and ensuring that there is a government fall-back plan for beneficiaries who do not have access to a private plan.

Over the August recess, my seniors made it clear that they do not want the Medicare program privatized. They like Medicare, they trust it, and they know that it will take care of them when they need it.

On the flip side, they know that private insurance companies have abandoned them

year after year, have raised their premiums, raised their copays, and raised their deductibles, all while slashing their benefits.

They don't trust Medicare HMOs any farther than they can throw them. Our seniors don't want HMOs, and this Congress shouldn't force them on them.

Now on the government fallback provision, you don't need to be an insurance expert to know that insurers aren't going to sell a policy that everyone is going to make claims against.

And we know that 86 percent of seniors have prescription drug costs. So we know that individuals buying these policies are going to use them.

The risks of individual claims far outweigh any potential profits from these policies. Insurers know that, seniors know that and I think even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that.

But if they admit that, than I guess they'd have to admit that the private market just does not work for Medicare beneficiaries.

So they've refused to allow for even the possibility that private insurers won't participate in this plan.

But I would argue that, if the private market really works for this population, than they shouldn't have any objection to a government fall-back, because--if they're right--they're never going to need it.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, fixing these two provisions would clear the way for passage of this legislation. I think anyone who has campaigned that they would be the ones to fight for a prescription drug benefit should vote for this motion to instruct conferees so that we can move this process forward, get a prescription drug benefit enacted and actually start providing some help to our seniors.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 2003, Dr. Shelby M. Elliott will retire as president of the Texas Chiropractic College. I rise to congratulate Dr. Elliott on his successful tenure at Texas Chiropractic College and to wish him well in his retirement.

Shelby M. Elliott was born in Wild Cherry, Arkansas, the eldest son of parents who instilled the values of hard work and the importance of attaining as much education as possible. After attending pre- chiropractic coursework at Paducah Community College, he completed his Doctor of Chiropractic degree at Texas Chiropractic College, then enrolled in Logan College of Chiropractic and earned a second doctorate.

He maintained a successful chiropractic practice in Dayton, Texas for 38 years and held several key business and civic leadership positions, including president of the Rotary Club of Dayton, charter member of the Dayton American Legion Post No. 512, board member of the Moody National Bank and the First Texas Bank, and member of the Dayton School Board and the Dayton-Liberty Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. Elliott was honored as ``Young Chiropractor of the Year'' in 1964 and as ``Chiropractor of the Year'' in 1971 by the Texas Chiropractic Association and has been awarded the coveted Keeler Plaque. He was also awarded the ``William D. Harper Science of Existence Award'' in 1988 by Texas Chiropractic College, the ``Lifetime Chiropractic Achievement Award'' in 1988 and the ``Doctor of the Year'' in 1990 by the American Chiropractic Association and was honored as ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce in 1996. I first met Doc Elliott in 1974 when he ran for State representative in East Texas. His loss was healthcare's gain.

He has held every elective position in local, State and national chiropractic associations. Shelby Elliott served as president

of the Board of Governors for the American Chiropractic Association for an unprecedented five years, during his nine-year tenure on this board. He even served nine years on the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners, having been appointed by two different governors.

Shelby Elliott was appointed as the twelfth president of Texas Chiropractic College on September 1, 1990. At the time of his appointment, the Texas Chiropractic College was suffering with significant financial and morale problems. The Texas Chiropractic College Board of Regents recognized that the college needed a leader with vision and focused discipline. Fortunately, the Board of Regents was able to convince Shelby Elliott to accept the position of president and retire from professional practice for the sake of saving Texas Chiropractic College from bankruptcy and closure.

Dr. and Mrs. Connie Elliott personally gave $10,000 of their own funds to renovate the president's office when they began, and have always been leaders in financial support to the Texas Chiropractic College. Dr. and Mrs. Elliott even donated the Texas Chiropractic College landmark sign that welcomes visitors to the campus.

Today, the Texas Chiropractic College is financially secure, with cash reserves thanks to Dr. Elliott's financial management skills. During his successful tenure, Dr. Elliott has built four beautiful and significant campus buildings within a five year period, improving the college's capacity to provide quality education for a new generation of health care providers.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Shelby Elliott is a legend in Texas and will be sorely missed. As a fitting tribute to his dedication to the Texas Chiropractic College, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Dr. Shelby Elliott for his fine work and to wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Davis amendment to the D.C. Appropriations bill.

Our country has a rich tradition of providing a quality education to every child in America. I am a strong believer in America's public schools. My wife taught in them for more than a quarter century. Many of my family members and friends are public school teachers. My wife and I are both graduates of public schools, as are our children.

My children, Angie and Chris, both graduated from public schools, and went on to attend the University of Texas and Texas A&M, respectively. My daughter attended the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and is now doing her residency in internal medicine there. These are all public schools. I am proud of the adults they have become, and know that they owe many of their successes to the fine educations they've received at these public schools.

So I am disheartened by attempts like this one which seek to dismantle America's public school program. I know that proponents of this measure will argue that students in failing schools deserve better--and I couldn't agree with them more. But vouchers are not the answer.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the average voucher covers only a small part of the costs of private school tuition. The vouchers provided in this legislation would not go far enough to help all students attend private schools. Only those with incomes sufficient to cover the remainder of the tuition would be able to truly have a choice. That leaves low-income students that much further behind.

Additionally, vouchers are unproven. The evidence is unclear as to whether students actually do better in private schools than in public schools with smaller class sizes. If we are really committed to providing every child with a top-notch education, we should implement proven reforms in all schools--qualified teachers, small class sizes, updated materials, and advanced technologies.

Ninety percent of America's kids to go public schools. If we're going to keep our promise to these kids, we need to make sure that all of them--not just the fortunate few who can actually afford private schools--receive a quality education.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday July 25, 2003, I had to return to Houston for urgent business, and missed a number of votes.

I would like the Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would I have voted in the following manner:

On rollcall No. 447, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 448, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 449, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 450, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 451, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 452, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 453, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 454, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 455, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 456, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 457, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 458, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 459, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

First of all, let me say to all of our colleagues, we are almost going to hear from every Member who represents a section of Harris County and the city of Houston. As we can tell, there is difference of opinion, but there is also some misinformation. Let me correct what has been said. There is a referendum on the ballot for November. No matter what we do today, there will be a referendum on the ballot. The ballot language may be changed in a couple of weeks, but the issue of bonds under State law is what our local Metro board has to do. They have to have a referendum. And that referendum will be about a plan, at least the first installment, we hope, of a plan that will really bring more light rail to Houston.

It will serve more than what is already planned. We already have a 7.5 mile segment that is built with local money because of the original amendment in this bill that serves from downtown out to our football stadium and the Astrodome and serves the medical center and Rice University and lots of areas in between; but to serve areas in my district, we have to have a referendum. To serve northside and east end of Houston, we have to have a referendum, and that is why we do not need this language in the bill.

It is important that Houston is the only city in the country that has been held to this higher standard. Granted, the amendment that is in the bill by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is better than the original language, but we are still spelling out that they have to put the projects in the referendum. We do not do that for any other city, in fact, cities that are much smaller than the fourth largest city in the country. That is why it is unfair to do this. I was an opponent of heavy rail because I think in Houston we are so geographically diverse, and for years as a legislator I opposed it; but I watched how other cities in the country have used light rail, and it hurts me as a Houstonian to say that even the city of Dallas is successfully using light rail and Federal dollars to expand without jumping through the hoops that we would require them to do if the original language in this bill is done.

That is why I rise in support of the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. Jackson-Lee) amendment. Again, two of those lines that are on the ballot that will be approved come to my area. They are not all in district 18. They serve an area near east end.

I represent a district that is very urban and also suburban; so I realize we need light rail along with lots of highway construction; and for years it have been known that I love to build highways, but I also know we cannot build them fast enough in Houston to solve the problems of transit any more than Dallas could, any more than any other part of the country, any other urban area in the country can do it. That is why we need to take all the language out of the bill and let the Houstonians and the people who are in that metro area pass this bond election in November and expand the light rail with Federal funding like many cities that are much smaller than us.

Unfortunately, this legislation prohibits the use of Federal funds for planning, designing and building this light rail unless it is itemized in there. And as much as I would like to see my two projects in my area itemized, the city of Houston or any city does not list in their bond what water projects they are going to do. They are going to do as many as they can because they need to have that local flexibility. But I will tell the Members what, if Metro does not do the plan that they have, I would be the first one back up here to say wait a minute, they fooled the voters of Houston and they will be punished for that. They should not do that.

Do not hold the city of Houston and my constituents to a higher standard than we hold Dallas, than we hold any other city in the country, including many that are much smaller. We have a referendum plan. The voters will make that decision this November, and let us let the voters make that decision with their Federal tax dollars to help with light rail, and that is why I support the Jackson-Lee amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Since 1965, Head Start has successfully provided comprehensive child development and family support services for more than 20 million low-income preschool children and their families. Programs are designed locally and are administered by a network of 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year this program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these children are better prepared when they enter kindergarten. It is an extremely effective and popular program, one that we should be working to strengthen. We should be working to strengthen the educational component for the children and their parents. We should be continuing the health care, not referrals away from the Head Start center sites. We should strengthen accountability and cover more children.

We have great examples in my own congressional district that I represent of successful public school- and Head Start-provided cooperation, putting both Federal dollars and public dollars, and local State dollars to effectiveness, serving more children. We do not need to block grant it. I have watched States this year reduce educational funds. We do not need to do that to Head Start. This is not reform. This bill deforms Head Start.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act.

Since 1965, Head Start has successfully provided comprehensive child development and family support services to more than 20 million low- income preschool children and their families.

Programs are locally designed, and are administered by a network of about 1,500 public and private nonprofit agencies. Each year, this program serves more than 900,000 students, ensuring that these children are better prepared when they enter kindergarten.

This is an extremely effective and popular program, and one that we should be working together to strengthen.

We should be strengthening the educational component and better health care effort but that is not the focus of H.R. 2210.

Instead, H.R. 2210 seeks to dismantle the program by moving it closer to a State block grant, despite evidence that these are lower-quality, less comprehensive programs.

Despite claims that the legislation we are considering today is improved from previous versions, this bill still allows States to weaken educational standard by increasing class size, increasing child- teacher ratio, shortening program duration, cutting off 3-year-olds from services, and using unproven curricula.

The bill would undermine the comprehensive nature of the program by eliminating parent-classroom involvement, health and mental health screenings and services, adult literacy services, vision and dental services, and health and nutrition education.

This bill would also allowing States to use Head Start funds to supplant other Federal funds. I don't know about you, but I don't want Head Start funds to be paving highways and building bridges.

And as my colleague from California will point out, this legislation repeals longstanding civil rights protections for employees of Head Start programs operating through faith-based organizations. This bill would allow taxpayer dollars to be used to support discrimination in hiring based on religion.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Head Start program isn't perfect, but rather than working toward bipartisan improvements to the program, this bill is a partisan effort at dismantling this program.

Our children deserve better. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2210.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, and I would not be here this morning supporting this reimportation bill if we had passed a real pharmaceutical prescription drug plan under Medicare that did not have a hole you could drive an M-1A tank through.

I have constituents who now go to Mexico and order pharmaceuticals through Canada on the Internet. I have bought pharmaceuticals in Mexico myself to use. They are safe. We need to make sure they are available for our constituents legally.

If we are not going to pass a real pharmaceutical prescription drug plan under Medicare, we need to at least pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pharmaceuticals Market Access Act, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

For far too long, Americans have been paying a premium for prescription drugs. Our constituents are paying top dollar for their drugs, while citizens from other industrialized countries like Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Great Britain are getting deeply discounted prescription drugs.

American consumers are charged, on average, 38 percent more than consumers in Canada, 31 percent more than citizens of Great Britain, 45 percent more than French consumers, and 48 percent more than Italian citizens. This is simply unacceptable.

Now I know that opponents of this bill will try to muddy the waters by raising the specter that reimportation is unsafe and unfair, but this is simply not true.

Manufacturers have been safely importing drugs into this country for years. In 2001 alone, they spent $14.7 billion bringing prescription drugs into the United States.

Additionally, H.R. 2427 specifically prohibits counterfeit drugs, drugs that have been tampered with, and expired drugs from entering the United States.

Under this bill, only FDA approved drugs would be allowed into the country. The only difference from U.S. manufactured drugs will be the more affordable price.

And don't be alarmed by cries that this will decrease research and development into new medicines. Pharmaceutical companies' after-tax profits--and after expenditures for R&D--averaged 17 percent from 1994 to 1998. This leaves plenty of money for R&D.

The bottom line is that opponents of this bill want to protect pharmaceutical industry profits.

I urge my colleagues to stand up a against these special interests, and for your constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th District of Texas.

This bill provides $33.7 million for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, which will allow our Nation's second largest port to continue to grow and handle the heavy energy and petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the smooth economic functioning of our nation. The Port of Houston

is home to the single largest petrochemical complex in the country, with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 percent of the Nation's petrochemical capacity.

By increasing the capability of the Ship Channel to handle newer, larger tankers more safely, Congress will directly increase the energy security of our nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. If we can obtain an additional $15 million as this legislation moves forwards, the construction on the Ship Channel can be completed within the fiscal year. The Ship Channel is one of the primary economic engines in my District and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of thousands of jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands across the State.

For flood control, this legislation provides $1 million for flood protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8,000 homes flooded in the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to moderate income.

When complete, the $180 million Hunting Bayou Federal Flood Control Project will reduce the number of structures in the 100-year flood plain in the watershed from 5,500 to 800, and the local sponsor is projected to cover half of the total project cost.

The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during the event occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start moving dirt down there as soon as possible.

I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their efforts.

I rise in support of the Obey substitute, and specifically the increase in

Low Income Home Energy Assistance funding it provides. The underlying bill has only $1.7 billion in regular LIHEAP funding appropriations and a small $100 million account for contingencies.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wisely provides $2.25 billion in regular appropriations for LIHEAP. For low-income and elderly Americans trying to weather through the terrible energy bills in this country, LIHEAP is critical, and every dollar helps out.

But for folks from the South, there is even a bigger reason to support the funding level in the Obey amendment. LIHEAP funding has a $1.9 billion threshold, which means that after funding exceeds that level, Southern States that use LIHEAP for cooling during the summer months receive a fairer portion of the funding. People die from heat more than from cold in our country.

The Obey amendment provides an additional $28 million in low-income assistance for Texans struggling to pay their electric bills. Texas LIHEAP averages about $500 per family, so that means an additional 56,000 families could be reached just in Texas alone.

The President in his Statement of Administrative Policy says he believes we need more LIHEAP funding. I bet if he saw the levels in the Obey amendment and if he saw what it means for low-income Texans, he would support it, too.

I strongly believe that the LIHEAP formula needs to be reformed to address the situation in the hotter Southern States. Texas receives the second lowest amount per low-income person in the country under LIHEAP, about $10. Minnesota receives $160 per low-income person. My colleagues know that heat causes serious health problems that can kill. According to the National Weather Service, in 2000 and 2001, there were 324 heat- related deaths and 30 cold-related deaths. Heat worsens heart conditions, lung conditions, diabetes, circulatory conditions. During a Texas summer, for old folks and the disabled and those with chronic conditions, air conditioning is a lifesaver, not a luxury. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition to H.R. 2657, the Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education Appropriations bill.

This bill is the single most important appropriations bill we will consider. It provides funding for critical programs such as Head Start, the National Institutes of Health, Low-Income Energy Assistance, Pell Grants, the Community Access Program, the Centers for Disease Control, and countless other programs that directly serve most Americans.

This is the bill that, more clearly than any other bill, shows the glaring differences between the parties, because this bill woefully underfunds almost every one of the programs I just mentioned.

For example, many of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill breaks the Majority's promise made in the FY 2004 Budget Resolution to provide a $3 billion increase from the previous year for the Department of Education.

This means less money for programs like Title I, on which my schools rely to help educate low-income and disadvantaged children.

This bill falls $334 million short of the majority's promise to provide $1.0 billion more for the poor and minority children who aren't getting the education they need and deserve.

Further, the bill eliminates other No Child Left Behind programs like Drop-Out Prevention Grants, freezes State Assessment Grants, and shortchanges Safe Schools Initiatives, only a few of the programs that the current legislation affects.

In fact, annual increases in the Federal investment in discretionary education programs have actually spiraled downward since the act was signed into law--from 18.2 percent in FY 2002 to 6.4 percent in FY 2003 to a meager 4.3 percent in FY 2004 under this bill--the smallest dollar increase in 4 years and the smallest percentage increase in 8 years.

Public health programs also suffer in the proposed appropriations bill.

The bill provides an overall increase for NIH of just 2.5 percent-- the smallest percentage increase in more than 15 years and a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases that NIH has received during the past 5 years under the bipartisan program to double the biomedical research budget.

The bill's 2.5 percent increase would fall short of what is needed merely to keep up with inflation in research costs, which NIH estimates at 3.3 percent.

And as I mentioned during debate on my colleague from Wisconsin's amendment, this legislation does not do nearly enough to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

LIHEAP is critical to my constituents in Houston, helping them to pay their cooling bills. It is 91 degrees in Houston today, with 88 percent humidity. This summer, temperatures can be expected to average in the high 90s. Senior citizens rely on LIHEAP to help protect them from these extreme conditions.

Yet this legislation underfunds it by $200 million. This is a serious problem, and don't just take my word for it.

Even the President of the United States, in his Statement of Administrative Policy, expresses his disappointment at the funding level, saying that this funding level ``could limit the ability to address the heating and cooling needs of low-income families.''

There are so many problems with this legislation that there is simply no way to improve it. There is no money to shuffle from one account to another in this bill, because all of these programs are critical.

We simply don't provide enough funding for them, and that's because we have squandered our resources on a tax cut. This bill makes that priorities of the leadership clear--tax cuts for the wealthy, and program cuts for everyone else.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding me the time, and also the chairman of the committee.

Both the Ready to Teach Act and the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act try to improve teacher training and quality and retention. I congratulate the Committee on Education and the Workforce on these two bills, but both these bills fall short in one important area. They fail to correct the problem of the government pension offset, or what is called the GPO. The Committee on Education and the Workforce cannot address this major reason people are leaving the teaching profession because they do not have the jurisdiction.

In my home State of Texas, teachers are leaving the profession in droves because of the unfair GPO. This provision reduces spousal benefits by two-thirds and, in some cases, eliminates benefits altogether.

The GPO is a problem for many public servants, but especially bad for women. Eighty percent of the Texas school teachers and retirees are women. Sixty percent of that group are married. Almost all of them are eligible for Medicare through their husbands, and none of them are eligible for their spousal Social Security benefit because of the government pension offset.

After a lifetime of being underpaid as teachers, they depend on their Social Security widow's benefit to make up for it in their retirement; but the GPO, the government pension offset, takes away that widow's benefit.

The only way some teachers can escape this unfair mentality is by working their last day in a job covered by Social Security and their retirement system. This last-day exemption is the only way teachers can get a fair retirement benefit; but this House is trying to take that away, and we debated this issue a few months back when the House voted narrowly on H.R. 743, the so-called Social Security Protection Act.

That language would eliminate the last-day exemption and cause many of my Texas teachers to lose their widow's benefits. Teachers in Texas are retiring by the busload so that they can get their benefits before the Senate acts to take them away.

This is a serious problem in Texas and other States that do not have Social Security as part of their teacher retirement system, and it is causing a serious retention problem. Debating these bills today is good, but we really need to look at why teachers are leaving the profession instead of getting into it.