Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the text any California amendment, but opposing the bill.

I guess some people are wondering why I have concern about this legislation. Having my first two terms in Congress on the Committee on Education and Workforce, but also for many years as a State legislator in the State Senate in Texas on the Education Committee, it has been frustrating, both in Congress and as a legislator dealing with IDEA and the special-ed programs.

For more than a quarter of a century, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, has helped countless disabled youth to complete their education and become contributing members of our society. I see it every day when I go home every weekend.

Although this program has succeeded in its efforts to ensure that all American children receive a free and appropriate public education, this Congress, and I am not talking about the majority Republican, I am talking about my first term when we were in the majority, although IDEA was not up for reauthorization, we failed to fully fund IDEA. This is my sixth term, and for five of those terms, as Democrats, we have not been in the majority, so somewhere along the way you are going to have to quit pointing back a decade ago and saying ``it is your all's fault.''

I am sure that almost every Member of Congress, at one point or another, expressed their support for full funding of IDEA. But when it comes down to putting our money where our mouths are, we once again come up short.

I know the frustration, because we see it in our schools, we see it on our State level, we see it with our parents, instead of requiring Congress to live up to the promise and fully fund the 40 percent of IDEA costs that we agreed to do originally, this legislation continues to leave the funding subject to the appropriations process.

Children with disabilities have a hard enough time making it in this world. We should not make them compete against all the other very worthwhile projects that we have. We should live up to the promise and provide mandatory funding for IDEA.

We also should not make it harder for students to receive their education by the provisions in this bill on discipline. I do not want somebody bringing guns or knives or scissors to school to hurt someone, but I also know we should not let minor infractions cause a student to be removed from an educational setting that works for them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill and support for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to learn that this past Monday, Guy V. Lewis was not elected into the Basketball Hall of Fame, despite of his obvious qualifications and contributions to the game.

Coach Lewis has had a tremendous impact on the game of basketball throughout our country and in Texas, having coached the University of Houston Cougars for more than 30 years. This university is my alma mater, and the school pride that he instilled during the tenure still lingers today.

This exemplary coach led the Cougars to 592 wins, 5 final fours, 14 NCAA title games, and 2 NCAA titles.

He also coached his team in the historical 1968 UH vs. UCLA game, which was the first collegiate game ever nationally televised and the largest crowd to watch a collegiate game at that time. I'm proud to say I was there as a University of Houston student.

Star players Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Elvin Hayes, all named among the NBA's 50 greatest players of all time, got their start at the University of Houston with Coach Lewis. But despite all of Coach Lewis' accomplishments, he was still over looked for the Hall of Fame.

Coach Lewis is only 81 years old, and although he may not have been elected this time around, I want him to know that sports fans everywhere consider him to be a true pioneer of basketball.

I know that I speak for all Houstonians when I say that we are very proud of Coach Lewis. I look forward to congratulating him on his election into the Basketball Hall of Fame in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6. America needs movement on our energy policy. America needs more production of domestic oil and gas to keep our supply diverse, to keep prices moderate and to keep my State's largest employing industry from running out of gas, literally.

Some have said that it is balanced, some will say it is not; but I think this is a good piece of legislation. The bill deals with a great deal of efficiency in title I and production in title II, so I think it is a good compromise on policy of electricity.

Many Members have questions on this electricity policy; but the purpose is to apply equal treatment to all regions, with certainty for investors and consumers.

The bill also is a good compromise on ethanol and gasoline. The fuels provision is more gradual than last year's version and provides assistance to help manufacturers adjust to the new Federal mandate.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation also does a great deal for energy research, and I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), for his work as ranking member on that subcommittee.

At the same time we do work on efficiency, conservation and production, we have to invest in new technology. That is a balanced energy policy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our committee for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, we come from a big State that wants big trucks and big cars, and my concern about the Markey amendment, not that we would not like to have more fuel efficiency, but it actually treats our trucks even harsher than what the National Academy of Sciences says is reasonable. That is why I think we need to have more study on it. Let us make sure we have a plan that works, not only for some parts of our country, but the whole country.

The Markey amendment will restrict consumer choice, particularly for folks where I come from, who like to drive

trucks. But I do think we need to get better gas mileage; and hearing from some of the speakers in our committee, we are going to get better gas mileage, without the onerous provisions of the Markey amendment.

Again, this is much worse than what we considered in the last Congress, and that is why I think it should be voted down tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), for yielding me this time and allowing me to speak on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wilson amendment. I want to follow up on what my colleague from Massachusetts said. He is correct, drilling for oil is messy, inexact and unpredictable, but that is what our economy runs on. Maybe 20 or 50 years from now we will be able to have some other energy source, but for the foreseeable future we have to have hydrocarbons. That is why I appreciate the Wilson amendment, because it limits the production and the pipelines and everything else in ANWR to that 2,000 acres.

I have had the opportunity a couple of times to go to ANWR on the coastal plain to meet with the residents of Kaktovik. I found out something interesting the last few days when I have asked my colleagues, who went up there with the environmental community. I asked them if they sat down with the native Alaskans, who want production in their community because they want the jobs. And they do not want it spoiled, they do not want oil running out on the ground or hurting their fisheries, but they want it because they know they can do it efficiently and they can do it clean and they also know that that it is good for the economy of our country.

My colleagues talk about what we import. Well, it is just strange to me that we close off ANWR, we close off California, and we close off Florida. The only place they want to drill is in Texas, and we are willing to do it to fuel our country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this wartime supplemental appropriations bill which provides needed resources for our troops who are fighting so valiantly in Iraq. With a price tag of almost $78 billion, this bill represents the largest supplemental bill ever considered by Congress.

This bill strikes the necessary balance between providing the Defense Department the flexibility to get resources to our troops in a timely manner and retaining Congress' constitutional authority over the nation's spending.

While this bill addresses our military needs abroad during this time of war, we must remember that we're also fighting a war against terrorism on our homefront. To do so effectively requires significant resources for the security of our ports and borders, our counterterrorism initiatives and our first responders on the front lines of this war. Yet only 5 percent of the funding in this bill is dedicated to homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, throughout this country, our states and localities are strapped for cash. They simply do not have the resources to take on the financial burden of homeland security. Without Federal help, there is no way we can implement a coordinated and comprehensive effort to defend our cities and states from attack.

Without doubt, the domestic and military needs of this country are great. And in times of need, the American people have a proud history of banding together and sacrificing for the betterment of the nation as a whole

It is in this tradition of shared sacrifice that we must put the needs of the country ahead of any personal desire for a tax cut. Our increasing budget deficits alone show that we can't afford it. And there's little evidence to suggest that this second tax cut would do any better than the first at stimulating the economy.

As we consider this supplemental bill and other budget and tax measures, I urge my colleagues to remember the true needs of this nation by providing adequate funding for homeland security and abandoning this fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal that will inevitably be paid for on the backs of future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security, for yielding me this time.

One thing I do agree with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security about is that we should reform the government pension offset. Instead of talking about technicalities or ways that people have figured a way around it, we ought to look at the whole issue. There has been legislation cosponsored by the majority of this House for 3 years, but we have not had a hearing yet on dealing with that. That is what is frustrating.

So instead of dealing with the big issue, they are going to say, okay, for those teachers or firefighters or police officers in Texas or Georgia or whatever other States, they are going to punish those because they found a way under current law to be able to receive their widows' benefits. We are talking about widows benefits. I do not know about the GAO study or whatever they wanted to talk about, but I do know that we are talking about widows' benefits.

Let me give an example. I have a lady in my own district in the Aldine School District; her husband passed away 10 years ago. She has been receiving his Social Security widow's benefits. She teaches school. She is 73 years old now. After decades of teaching math, she is ready to retire; but if she retires, she will have her widow's benefits under Social Security reduced so substantially that there will almost be nothing left, because of her teacher retirement under the State of Texas.

Now, again, I do not know how the request was made for these GAO studies, but I do know that the facts on the ground show something different than what my colleagues say. This teacher will have to wait to retire. She would have to go to work for 5 years at a school that has Social Security. Well, she does not have that choice. We have some districts in Texas who do, some who do not. Very few actually do. So she would have to be 78 years old under the bill to be able to continue receiving her widow's benefits. That is wrong. That has been wrong, and it is affecting so many people. That is why we have an amendment, and I thank the Committee on Rules for giving us an opportunity to strike that section.

We have an opportunity through that amendment that will do it. Let us deal with the whole issue, but let us also support the amendment that will leave this provision in here for people who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate has been good because it has talked about what the concern is, that we really need to deal with government pension offset.

I know there has been legislation introduced now for a number of years and that there is a commitment to have a hearing on it, but we have a bill right now; the latest legislation, H.R. 594, has at least 50 Republican Members and in a very short time has received almost 200 co-sponsors of it, that would eliminate the controversial government pension offset. And I guess that is what is frustrating because we have so much support to eliminate it or at least, as had been earlier talked about, let us moderate it. Do not punish widows that are public employees, two-thirds. Let us make them only pay one-third. Sure, they only worked a day maybe, but they are not getting it for their work under Social Security.

They are getting it because they were married to their spouse for at least 10 years and, in some cases, 30 and 40 years; and yet, because they were public schoolteachers, they had to take advantage of that loophole because, otherwise if their husband died before they were 62, they did not receive anything. So they found a way under current law to seek redress, and this bill is going to close that loophole, supposedly.

Again, maybe it should be, if my amendment is adopted, I would like the committee to really bring out a reform during this Congress because, again, we have been waiting now for many years. In fact, my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), I remember 3 years ago he and I stood at a press conference with lots of Members talking about we need to reform the government pension offset, and that is what ought to be done, but do not punish the States of Georgia or Texas or whatever other jurisdiction said, well, wait a minute, we know it is wrong, we know it is wrong to penalize a widow who teaches school.

For example, a colleague of mine from Texas has a military base, Fort Hood, with a lot of his constituents now in the Persian Gulf. They said we have a program that is called Troops to Teachers. Our armed services pay Social Security so they retire from the military, and yet they are going to go back to teach and they are going to be penalized for the Social Security they earned in the military if they retire in Texas from the teacher retirement system and they do not work for a school district that has Social Security.

The system is wrong, and my colleagues are making it worse by changing it by this bill; and this is what is so bad. My colleagues can show me all of the studies, but I cannot explain those studies to my constituents who are teachers who said you mean to tell me I have been married 30 years to my husband and everything because we are talking about 80 percent of these people are women, and we know nationally the retirement income for women is so much lower than men. We have teachers who have been married all these years, and sure, they are going to take advantage, but that is because they have been married to someone who paid into Social Security for at least 10 years, in some cases 3 or 4 decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of debate already on the general debate, but I rise in opposition to the legislation in support of my amendment, and it is frustrating because there are some good things in this legislation, but I guess what is really frustrating is that why should a section of this bill be addressed to public educators, firefighter and police officers that happen to be in Texas or Georgia, and yet, in another section, we are trying to combat fraud by felons.

I agree, we should combat fraud by felons; and if we have felons who are receiving Social Security, felons who are absconding, I do not mind. In fact, why are we waiting this long to keep them from getting their Social Security? Do not go after widowed teachers, whose spouses paid into Social Security.

Eighty percent are women who receive fewer retirement benefits than men, and it is not just for teachers, firefighters in the same legislation. It just seems like it is wrong to put that issue in the same legislation due to felons receiving Social Security benefits.

In fact, I had a constituent last night say, you mean to tell me all these years I have taught and I am in the same legislation trying to close a loophole for fugitive felons receiving Social Security? I said, I am sorry, ma'am, but that is what it has. The bill has some other good things in it; but we have this amendment, and I appreciate the Committee on Rules providing this.

It is called a loophole, but it is really not. There are lots of loopholes in our laws, but it is called laws; and I know on our side of the aisle we have talked about corporate loopholes for a long time. Let us close up the corporate loopholes, but why are we closing up one for the widowed teachers, again, who their only punishment is they worked as a public schoolteacher and was married to someone who paid into Social Security at least 10 years and, again, in some cases, many more years?

When the House first considered this legislation, it failed because of a controversial provision that we have, and the bill ought to pass, but it ought to be passed without this provision, and let us come back, get our Ways and Means subcommittee and the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with the government pension offset as a separate bill.

Last session, this legislation passed out of the House with, I do not think, any dissenting votes. It went to the Senate; and on a technicality, they added this back in, and it was stopped in the House when they tried to pass it on unanimous consent last fall and when most of us were in our districts.

In States where some public employees are not covered by Social Security, such as in Texas, this does reduce the spousal benefits by two-thirds, and in some cases, it can eliminate all of them, all their benefits. It is a problem for many public servants, but it is especially, again, bad for women, and, again, since 80 percent of the Texas schoolteachers and retirees are women. Sixty percent of that group is married, and again, I think it is interesting on the floor of the House because I always heard the statement, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but here we have bills that can enforce marriage, why are people on social services, that encourage them to get married, and here we have teachers who are married for all these years, and yet we are punishing them under the pension government offset.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I realize my colleague from Texas did not have time to yield, but let me just say that these teachers do not make the choice between the teacher retirement systems and Social Security. The choice is made by the local school districts. That is why 50 school districts in Texas pay into both.

We have more than 1,100 school districts in the State of Texas where those local school board members, not those employees, those local school board members make that decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that having the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means calling this ``scamming the system'' is like the pot calling the kettle black. We have provisions in our Tax Code for individuals, one person. We have Tax Code provisions for one company or groups of companies. Yet it is a scam system if we are going to protect public school educators.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) with whom I have gone on trips to see our military, and this issue is also about the military. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who represents Fort Hood pointed out, this will impact them unless we reform the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say they are not receiving the benefits because of that 1 day, they are receiving them because they were married for at least 10 years to someone who paid into Social Security. That is the reason that they are receiving it. It is not hypothetical. We have people who have paid into Social Security for 40 years, and their spouses have received nothing. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To my really good friend and neighbor, that is the whole point of the debate. We should reform the government pension offset and not punish those who have found a way to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I think I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The reason I am offering this amendment is because the underlying bill provides for this section 418. There are a lot of good provisions in the underlying bill, and people can vote for my amendment and still vote for the bill. There are other States with public employees like Texas. It just impacts Texas more than I guess other States, maybe Georgia or somewhere else, that reduces our spousal benefits because we have local governments that do not participate in Social Security. Only 50 of our school districts, the gentleman

from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), participate; but we have over 1,100 school districts, and that is a local decision. My wife as a teacher did not decide she would go to work for someone who paid Social Security. She went to work because she wanted to be a teacher, and that is the frustration because no one thinks about it until they realize later in their careers, wait a minute, I have been married for all these years and I am going to get penalized if my husband passes away?

Marriage is a contract. It is also a contract that says they have worked together for all those years and yet if they happen to be a public school teacher, tough luck for that marriage contract. They do not benefit. They get punished because they worked as a teacher and they did not pay into Social Security, but their spouse did, their husband did. Again, we are talking about 80 percent of the public schoolteachers in Texas and I am sure nation-wide, and I am sure this is a nation-wide problem. It is just that Texas has found a way around it, and yet you are going to punish Texas, and yet Georgia and other States have the same problem. Almost all these people are eligible for Medicare through their husbands, but none of them are eligible for their spousal benefit because of the government pension offset. The GPO is wrong, and I would not be here today if we had a bill come out to deal with the GPO on a fair basis, the government pension offset; but we are not.

I do not want to keep this loophole. I want it to treat fairly all the government employees who are being treated badly, but it affects teachers because they are the most in population. It affects firefighters and police officers also; but after a lifetime of being underpaid and they depend on their husband's Social Security or widow's benefits if they pass away and yet we take it away, and it is just frustrating to see that happen and to punish people. Yes, in Texas we found a way to deal with this wrong and you are punishing teachers because we have dealt with it instead of dealing with it in Congress, and that is what is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Members thought that last battle was just because of Texas teachers, firefighters, or police officers; and it is, but simply because Texas has found a way to deal with the government pension offset. Another State, Georgia, has tried and is doing the same thing.

We need to reform the government pension offset. A lot of Members have told me, we are going to vote for you, we are going to vote against you, but we need to reform it. This is what this motion to recommit says, to report back. It instructs the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House promptly with an amendment addressing the concerns of Federal, State, and local employees about the government pension offset under title II of the Social Security Act.

During the last 3 or 4 years, there have been bills introduced in this House that have been bipartisan. We have had at times 218 cosponsors of legislation to reform the government pension offset and have not had a hearing.

We have a bill right now, H.R. 594, that has at least 50 Republican cosponsors, and has about 175, and I think it has only been out for a few weeks for cosponsorship, to reform the government pension offset. This is our way to use our rules to be able to say to one of our committees, whether it is my Committee on Energy and Commerce or something else, to say we want to reform the government pension offset. That is why we want to send this bill back. They can reform it and send it back to us. That is what this is about.

If Members want to reform the government pension offset, if they want to take a benefit for not only teachers in Texas but teachers all across the country, Federal employees, military, because the government pension offset affects everyone who is a public employee, then we need to reform it. That is the job of our committee, the Committee on Ways and Means.

I would hope that Members would vote for this motion. That way, we would actually see this vote on the floor of the House that I have not seen until the last few weeks dealing with the government pension offset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating, because a lot of us have heard from our public employees across the country and in our districts. They are frustrated when they find out they get penalized, even though they did pay into Social Security. Or in the case of teachers in Texas who do not have the option because of their local school district decision, they do not even receive their widow's benefits without such a penalty. That is what is frustrating.

We need to reform the government pension offset. That is what the committee should do, and that is what this motion to instruct would do. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know about a $3 bill, but maybe the Committee on Ways and Means could get one printed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under our House rules that we are required to use the word ``promptly'' instead of ``forthwith'' because we now have had a budget resolution. I would ask, is that correct?

I withdraw the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget Resolution approved last month by this body contains cuts to domestic programs that millions of Americans depend on, day in and day out.

The victims of these funding cuts include Medicaid, children's health care, student loan, and veterans programs. To slash programs that provide health care to our seniors and children, educate our students and honor the commitments made to the veterans who have bravely protected our freedom flies in the face of the American values that we hold so dearly.

Mr. Speaker, the President didn't request cuts for these programs. Furthermore, the Senate's budget did not contain these cuts. Yet, this chamber cut these programs in order to fund a tax cut.

Ask any group of senior citizens if they'd trade Medicare funding for a tax cut on their dividends, and I guarantee you they'd choose Medicare. Ask any high school senior what's more important to him, a tax cut or a student loan program that will make his education more affordable. The answer is clear.

Ask any of our troops who are fighting so valiantly to bring freedom to Iraq whether they'd rather have a tax cut or adequately funded veterans programs. I bet you they'd want this country to honor their military service and restore the $14.6 billion this budget cuts from veterans programs over the next 10 years.

We cannot afford this tax cut on economic grounds alone. But to pay for it by taking away from our seniors, students, veterans and farmers is particularly shameful. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and instruct the budget conferees to restore funding for these crucial domestic programs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on the need to revitalize our economy, and particularly the telecommunications sector.

The telecommunications industry has been in a severe decline. Part of it was an investment bubble, but a big part of the decline was due to regulatory uncertainty. The Federal Communications Commission had a chance to give the industry some certainty, and instead, created even more chaos. They avoided making the tough decisions and have punted the responsibility to our States.

In fact, they have succeeded in pleasing no one and punishing every sector of the telecommunications industry. Unlike Solomon in the Old Testament, the SEC actually did cut the telecom baby in half.

This chaos immediately struck Wall Street as the telecom stocks plummeted, wiping out over $15 billion in market capital. When the telecommunications companies are already hurting, devaluing their stock makes matters much worse because they do not have that money to invest in upgrades.

Madam Speaker, it has been more than a month since the FCC released their decision on the Triennial Review, and we still have not seen the details. The FCC needs to take actions that foster investments by all parties, not create artificial competition.

I hope their final order accomplishes its goals, but I am concerned that it may fall far short.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Child Abduction Protection Act and thank my California colleague for yielding me this time. I am a proud supporter of the AMBER program, which was created in Arlington, Texas. Everyone knows the history of the AMBER program, named for Amber Hagerman; but I am particularly proud that about 3 years ago our office in Houston started working on getting our radio network and the law enforcement in Houston, Texas, together.

I have a former staff member who now works for our leader, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Jimenez, who was instrumental in this. And now in Houston not only this week was the AMBER Alert activated in Houston and a 14- year-old girl returned safely yesterday, but we have used it well over a half a dozen times in my community. My community, I say. We share eight Members of Congress, so it is a large community.

The sooner the word gets out that children are abducted, the better the chances of them being brought home. Particularly in my area we made sure we did it in both Spanish and English. We have had some tragedies in my area that are predominantly Hispanic, so it has to be in both languages, or any language that is available in the community.

H.R. 1104 makes grants to States. Again, we need it for the State of Texas as a whole. I express my disappointment that it has been bogged down, but I intend to support the full bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Child Abduction Protection Act, which includes language to improve the Amber program.

I am proud supporter of the AMBER program, which was created in Arlington, Texas. The AMBER Plan is named in memory of nine-year-old Amber Hagerman. In 1996, Amber was abducted while playing near her Arlington, Texas home. She was later found murdered.

In response to community concern, the Association of Radio Managers, with the assistance of area law enforcement, created the AMBER Plan to give listeners timely information about area child abductions. The plan calls for law enforcement agencies to provide radio stations with an alert upon the immediate confirmation of a child's abduction. All participating radio stations will break programming to broadcast the alert and any subsequent information provided by police. This program has blossomed into a nationwide effort where 39 states have adopted a statewide AMBER plan. To day the AMBER Plan has been credited with recovering 51 children!

Just this week, the police in my hometown of Houston, Texas, activated the AMBER system when a 14-year-old girl went missing from her middle school. Fortunately, the young lady was returned safely to her home.

The AMBER alert has been successful in Houston, Texas many times and I am proud our office played a part in organizing the Houston effort almost 3 years ago. Ms. Cindy Jimenez, my former staff member now with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, worked successfully to coordinate the cooperation between news media and law enforcement.

This kind of success story highlights the needs to ensure that states have the resources they need to set up AMBER plans. Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction. The sooner word gets out that these children have been abducted, the better the chances that they will be brought home safely.

H.R. 1104 makes grants available to the states for them to set up AMBER alert plans, and also creates an Amber alert coordinator within the Department of Justice. I strongly support this provision.

I would like to express my disappointment, however, that this legislation has been weighted down with controversial issues. Issues such as mandatory minimum sentencing and making certain crimes punishable by the death penalty are matters for another day.

These issues are sure to slow down this important legislation. I urge the sponsors of this legislation to remove the controversial provisions so that the AMBER plan legislation can be enacted quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which urges Congress to increase federal funding for Type 1 diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes is a devastating illness that affects over 1 million Americans, many of whom are diagnosed as children. This serious disease robs children of their innocence and independence, and burdens its victims with a lifetime of finger-sticks, shots, and fear of dreaded complications. Even with a strict regimen of insulin injections, blood- glucose monitoring, diet and exercise, people with Type I diabetes are at severe risk for blindness, kidney failure, amputations, heart disease and stroke.

The burden of diabetes is felt by all Americans. Americans spend $105 billion each year on the direct and indirect costs of this disease. One of every four Medicare dollars is spent on beneficiaries with diabetes, and one in ten health care dollars overall are spent on individuals with this disease disease.

There is great promise that a cure for Type 1 can be found in the near future. Advancements in genetic research, transplantation and immunology, and research into potential vaccines all hold the potential to eliminate Type 1 diabetes. But if we are to find a cure, we in Congress must find the money to pay for it.

The Diabetes Research Working Group (DRWG), a Congressional appointed panel of experts in diabetes research, issued a report in 1999 that indicates the need for a significant increase in diabetes research. The DRWG recommended a $4.1 billion increase for diabetes research over a five year period. Congress must heed this report. This legislation I am introducing today recognizes the particular burden of Type 1 diabetes, and the need to follow the recommendations of the DRWG.

Mr. Speaker, full funding for diabetes research will help eradicate this devastating illness, save billions of health care dollars, and end the unnecessary suffering of millions of Americans.

During the previous Congress, this legislation was passed by unanimous consent, but with the pending budget fight and potential cuts to the NIH budget, it is imperative that the Congress raise its voice in support of finding a cure for Type 1 diabetes. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in our fight against this disease.

Mr. Chairman, let me follow up on what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) stated. I was here in 1993, and I voted for that. It was the hardest vote I ever made, but it worked. And it was not because of the Republican majorities in 1995. It was because of a bipartisan effort that we had a balanced budget and surpluses in the late 1990s. Now they are gone.

That is why I rise in opposition to the Republican budget and support the Spratt substitute amendment. This Republican budget does not provide enough. We know what we are going to have to pay for the military campaign in Iraq, which could range as high as $100 billion, and which programs will have to be cut to underwrite that $100 billion. What we know about this budget is it contains a monstrous tax cut that is paid for out of the expense of almost everything, including veterans, the war effort, prescription drugs for seniors. Let me repeat that. This tax cut affects some of the most critical entitlement programs, school lunches, student loans, veterans programs, and Medicaid and Medicare.

In my own committee, we are asked to cut $107 billion out of Medicaid and literally give pennies to prescription drugs to seniors. That is why the Spratt substitute is so good.

Mr. Speaker, our 1-minutes are designed for us to talk about things that are happening in our districts or whatever issues may be important for the day. I wanted to talk about a situation that is happening in east and northeast Harris County.

Mr. Speaker, we have a group that is talking about communities rallying for our troops. Now, our troops are in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have two groups, the 373rd Support Battalion and also the 450th Chemical Battalion. They are Houston Reserves who are serving our country. What is happening this week in North Shore and Channel View and northeast Harris County and Houston are our communities showing support for those young men and women serving our country everywhere in the world.

Mr. Speaker, we are fighting for freedom and democracy everywhere in the world. My only frustration is that here on the floor of the House today we do not even get an amendment on a major piece of legislation. But we know that we support our troops, whether they are in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Speaker, my Ohio colleague could not say Texas. He just wanted to say Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, and I am frustrated like a lot of Members, one because we do not have an opportunity to have additional amendments. I thank our chairman for allowing us to let democracy work its will in our committee. We had a long hearing all day. But here on the floor we do not have that option. The same thing happened last year on prescription drugs. It is frustrating.

We are fighting for democracy all over the world, but we do not get to have a voice here on the floor of the House with an alternative.

I have a district in Texas, and we have a medical malpractice crisis. Of course, we have gone in and out of this for the last 30 years, but it has been dealt with by our State legislature in Texas, and literally as we stand here today, there is legislation that is out of the committee on the floor of the House for consideration that will solve our problem in Texas where it should be dealt with.

Thirty-seven States, including my home State of Texas, are considering legislation that would address the malpractice situation. We do not need Congress to tell us what to do. We can deal with it.

If Congress makes a mistake with H.R. 5, and I consider it a mistake, it is one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best for all 50 States, instead of letting the States deal with it.

The California experience that my colleagues on the Republican side talk about so successful, it was California, as hard as it is for a Texan to say they did something good, but it works. We do not need to tell California or Texas or any other State what they can do. They can deal with it, instead of us dealing with it here.

But let me talk about H.R. 5 just a little bit. It does not deal with medical errors, we have separate legislation on that; it does not stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits; and it does not help us deal with physician shortages. That is why it should be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to respect the rights of States that have governed in an area for over 30 years.

This House will consider H.R. 5 tomorrow. This legislation does nothing more than attempt to impose Congress' will on States without giving them the opportunity to draft their own solutions to this problem.

Medical malpractice is a problem. Insurance rates are a problem. Availability is a problem. But our States have dealt with this issue for almost 30 years now, and I know that in Texas the State legislature is considering a piece of legislation now. In fact, in 37 States, States are considering legislation now.

State legislatures have always been the laboratories for successful legislation. They are best positioned to determine how to address the medical malpractice situation in these States. These lawsuits are filed in State courts, not in Federal courts. H.R. 5, however, ignores the hard work being done by our States and imposes a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best approach; and that is not the way to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues who consider themselves defenders of States' rights to oppose H.R. 5 tomorrow and let the State legislatures do their job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 342, the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act, introduced by my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, and my good friend, Chris John.

This legislation would provide grants to communities for the operation of mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito- borne diseases.

Last summer, Americans watched in fear as the West Nile virus spread rapidly across our country.

Before 1999, there was no record of a West Nile virus case in North America, but in the last few years, West Nile has become a serious public health concern.

According to the CDC, from 1999 through 2001, there were 149 cases of West Nile virus in the United States reported, including 18 deaths.

That number skyrocketed last year, with West Nile affecting almost 4,000 individuals, and killing 259.

In my home state of Texas, more than 190 people were infected, and 11 lost their lives.

I have no doubt that those numbers will continue to climb.

We must take steps to control mosquito populations now, before the summer months come and it is too late.

That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the MASH Act.

This legislation provides vital assistance to our communities to give them the tools they need to control mosquito populations and protect the public health.

It also recognizes the severity of mosquito-borne disease in certain communities and ensures that those hardest-hit areas receive a priority in receiving assistance.

I know this will be helpful to my hometown of Houston, which had 77 confirmed cases of West Nile in the past year, and recently discovered as many as 40 mosquito pools that are positive for West Nile virus.

Like I said, we must act now, before the weather warms up and the mosquitoes start to swarm. I strongly support passage and enactment of the MASH Act, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.