Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 535, Commending David Ray Ritcheson and his efforts in promoting legislation to combat hate crime.

David Ray Ritcheson was the victim of a horrific hate crime in Houston by white supremacists in April of 2006 because of his Mexican heritage.

He was brutally attacked with a metal pipe, burnt with cigarettes, had bleach poured on him, and was kicked with steel toed boots. His injuries from the attack were so severe that he underwent 30 surgeries and was scheduled for even more surgeries.

Miraculously, David was recovering from his injuries and eventually returned to school.

David wanted to move past his horrific experience, but he bravely came to Washington in April to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

David's case was never tried as a hate crime. Due to Federal statutes and under Texas criminal law, first-degree felonies are exempt from hate crimes provisions.

In his testimony, David called upon the Congress to give local authorities the ability to federally prosecute hate crimes. He said ``if these crimes cannot be prevented, the federal government must have the authority to support state and local bias crime prosecutions.''

I strongly agree with David and his testimony helped the House pass H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

Unfortunately, earlier this month, David took his own life.

David deserves to be remembered for the hero that he was and honored for his hard work to combat hate crimes.

I support this bill which will honor David Ray Ritcheson and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 687, 688, 689 and 690, had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3074, the FY08 Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill.

I want to thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Olver, Ranking Member Knollenberg and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this piece of legislation.

This bill contains vital funding for the Houston METRO's North and Southeast New Starts projects. The New Starts project will allow METRO to continue funding implementation of rail and bus rapid transit portions in the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor Projects that are in or service our district.

METRO will use this funding for final design, land acquisition and construction for the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor Projects.

Houston is the Nation's fourth largest city and the region is becoming increasingly congested. We have a critical need for a comprehensive rapid transit system.

The funds that have been allocated for the New Starts Program will improve mobility and transportation options for my constituents and benefit the greater Houston area.

This bill also contains funding for an Economic Development Initiative for the Harris County Community and Economic Department's Community Transit Study.

This funding will allow HUD to study two areas in our district, the Northshore area and city of Galena Park, for transit improvements such as sidewalks, street lights, and transit shelters.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for several projects that I strongly support.

These projects are: the Harrisburg Grade Crossing, Texas Department of Transportation's Design and Construction of Direct Connectors from Beltway 8 to U.S. 59 North, the city of Baytown's Texas Avenue Streetscape Program, the Brays Bayou Bike/Pedestrian Bridge at Mason Park, the Houston Zoo's Enhanced Zoo Interpretives Project, and the Houston Port Region's Economic Recovery Task Force.

While it is impossible to fund all of the projects that we request, I believe that these programs need Federal funding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The passport backlog has affected millions of people's travel plans, and I know in Houston, our district offices have been receiving calls on nearly a daily basis from constituents whose travel plans have been affected by the delay.

I visited the Houston Passport Office last month, and was amazed to learn people were arriving there hours before the office opened in order to get service. The staff at the Houston office has been working nights and weekends to clear the backlog, but there is only so much they can do.

Despite having known this increase would be coming since Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the Administration did not prepare for this increase and as a result, State Department employees and the American public is paying the price.

This was only the first phase of implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative--the second phase, which will require all individuals traveling to or from the United States by land and sea, could see an even larger demand for passports, especially in border states like Texas where people have friends and family across the border.

Last week, Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that her office anticipates the demand for passports will continue to grow and will be approximately 23 million in 200, and as high as 30 million by 2010.

The State Department must now do what they should have done over the last six months to a year, and hire additional employees to handle what appears will be a permanent increase in the number of passport applications they will be receiving annually.

This bill alleviates some of the backlog, but the State Department needs to ensure they have the people and systems in place to prevent this from happening in the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 966.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall Nos. 633 and 634 since I was at Walter Reed Army Hospital visiting injured troops. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, my good friend from Indiana and chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky, and Chairman Obey, for bringing up this important piece of legislation.

I rise in support of the supplemental report on H.R. 2641.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of $18.3 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project, which is $2 million more than the President's budget, and for including $15.442 million in operations and maintenance

for the Houston Ship Channel, which is $1 million over the President's request.

While I understand the tight fiscal constraints this Congress is under, I hope we increase funding for these projects in the future.

The continued O&M funding would be used to keep the channel at its authorized depth, which is critical to keeping the channel navigable for the tankers that bring in crude oil to our refineries. The navigation funding goes towards important environmental restoration work in the deepening and widening project. We are at the end of that project now.

Our area relies heavily on Corps of Engineers' funding, since we're not only an energy-producing area but also a low-lying area in the middle of a flood plain.

I requested funding through the Army Corps of Engineers for Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou and Halls Bayou, which were flooded during Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. These authorized projects are located in blue-collar residential areas in my district, where the threat of future flooding is all too real.

I am grateful the subcommittee included $588,000 for Greens Bayou, which will help conclude the study portion of the project and now the project is fast approaching its construction phase. The Greens Bayou project has a high 3.7 benefit to cost ratio, and in 2001, over 15,000 homes in this watershed flooded in Tropical Storm Allison.

I appreciate the committee's continued understanding of the pressing flood control needs in our area, but am disappointed only Greens Bayou received funding in this appropriations cycle.

Hunting Bayou has already started construction and a cut-off of Federal funding threatens to put this project into danger of falling further behind schedule. Fortunately, this is a 211 (f) project which provides the local sponsor--the Harris County Flood Control District-- flexibility to continue work on the project.

The Hunting Bayou project will reduce the number of homes and businesses in the 100-year flood plain by 85 percent, from 7,400 structures to 1,000. Eight thousand homes flooded in this area during Tropical Storm Allison as well.

I also hope Halls Bayou will receive funding in the future; this project is authorized in WRDA 1990 and is included in the pending WRDA legislation to become a Sec. 211(t) project.

Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Halls Bayou are not projects to protect vacation homes or homes in obvious flood hazard areas. Most of these areas were outside the flood plain until upstream development expanded the flood plains.

In closing, I want to commend the Chairman, and especially my good friend from Texas, Congressman Chet Edwards, for their hard work on this legislation, and hope they will continue their progress on funding critical needs across the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support the supplemental report.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 375, Honoring United Parcel Service and its 100 years of commitment and leadership in the United States.

I have a UPS facility in my district on Sweetwater Lane in Houston and I have visited the facility many times to speak with management and the employees who are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I even delivered packages with the UPS employees a few years ago on the Beltway 8 and Intercontinental Airport Route. Many of my constituents work at this UPS location and I am pleased that UPS continues to be a responsible employer and corporate citizen.

Many businesses have difficulties surviving over time, but UPS has stayed strong for 100 years. We appreciate their strong relationship with the local communities and the services they provide worldwide. I am pleased to honor UPS for their 100 years of service and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for allowing me to speak.

Before I get into my prepared remarks, part of the resolution, if my colleagues would go to page 5 of the resolution, says as part of the justification required, the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions: protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, including Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; but also, engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.

So while I sat here on the floor listened and heard, ``we are bailing out of attacking al Qaeda,'' we are not doing that. This resolution says we will still be there. The President has to certify, though, that is what we are doing. We are not shoring up the Iraqi Government; we are fighting al Qaeda, who brought us September 11. So anybody who says we are leaving is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and this legislation, and thank Chairman Skelton for his work on the bill. Like Chairman Skelton, I want to thank our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and their families who are serving our country.

I have stated before, we must let the Iraqi Government know our commitment is not open-ended. I have not supported efforts for immediate withdrawal, but this bill, just like our first supplemental sent to the President, which he vetoed, lets the Iraqi Government know that they need to make some tough choices to stabilize their country within the next several months.

It also gives our administration time to have a comprehensive strategy in Iraq, and allows the troops to remain to protect our diplomatic facilities and fight al Qaeda, and training and equipping the Iraqi security forces.

As this legislation states, we give the President the authority to use the Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Iraqi government at that time. But we won that battle. The government was removed. The power and its leader indicted, tried and convicted, and executed by the newly elected, now-democratic government of Iraq.

This bill will bring our troops home by April 1 of next year--that will be more than 5 years since the war began. U.S. taxpayers have spent billions of dollars, and thousands of troops have given their lives to bring security and stability to Iraq.

While the current Iraqi government has been organizing and security forces have been training, our forces have been responsible for every facet of security in Iraq. Our troops defeated Saddam's Army, worked to control the country, policed Iraq's streets, protected the transitional and elected governments, and trained Iraq security forces.

Our military has given the Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi people every opportunity to have a stable, democratic country. It is time to let the Iraqi people know that 5 years is long enough--they must take responsibility for the future of their country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to bring our troops home in a safe, responsible timeframe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the College Reduction Act of 2007, and I thank the chairman and the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I think it is a great step forward for our college students.

This important piece of legislation will strengthen the middle class by making college more affordable in several ways at no additional cost to taxpayers.

First, it will increase the maximum Pell grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years, and expand student eligibility for other grants like the National SMART grant. Both of these things will increase the purchasing power for students who otherwise would not be able to afford going to college.

In Texas alone, over 475,000 students will benefit from a $500 increase in the Pell grant.

In addition, this bill will cut interest rates on need-based Federal student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next 5 years.

All of this will be done at no additional cost to the taxpayers by cutting excess subsidies paid by the Federal Government to lenders in the student loan industry.

Four of the six offsets were already approved by the House this year, when it overwhelmingly voted to pass the College Student Relief Act of 2007 this past January.

During the past few years, student lenders have been able to increase their efficiencies through market-driven mechanisms, but the Government's subsidization has continued unchecked.

The Congress has a chance to help the American people at no additional cost for the taxpayer. How can we resist doing this?

In our district, financial barriers often inhibit the ability of high school graduates to go to college.

By reducing student loan interest rates and increasing Federal grants, we are encouraging families and students to get a college education.

When we pass this legislation, we are investing in the future of our economy, because we will have more college graduates with a lower debt burden. This will enable graduates to do things like buy homes, invest, and fuel our economy.

This is such a critical bill, and it's important that this body approach this bill in a manner that shows bipartisan support for educating our children.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2900, legislation to reauthorize important user fee programs at the Food and Drug Administration and enact critical drug safety reforms at the agency.

This legislation is the result of years of hard work by the Energy and Commerce Committee and particularly the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and the Health Subcommittee. I am proud to serve on both of these subcommittees. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has worked on a bi-partisan basis to investigate the drug safety concerns brought to light by scandals associated with drugs such as Vioxx, Ketek and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs, which are typically used to treat depression. These investigations uncovered significant safety lapses at the FDA and shed a bright light on the FDA's bias toward drug approval with too little attention paid to post-market safety concerns.

The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 makes important changes at the FDA to place a greater emphasis on post-market surveillance within the agency. Specifically, this legislation would establish a Risk, Evaluation, and Mitigation Strategy whereby drugs approved by the agency are monitored throughout their life-cycle for adverse events or other signs of safety concerns. A critical aspect of this strategy is the additional authority this bill gives the Secretary of HHS to mandate that drug manufacturers conduct post-market studies.

Under this bill, the additional post-market activities extend to the user fee programs that help fund the drug approval process. Specifically, this bill directs drug manufacturers utilizing the FDA's drug approval process to dedicate an additional $225 million over five years for post-market surveillance activities at the FDA. This additional funding represents an important investment by the pharmaceutical industry in the FDA's postmarket safety activities, while also ensuring that pre-market user fees are adequate to bring potentially life-saving medicines to market in a reasonable time.

This legislation also reauthorizes the Medical Device User Fee Act, as well as the Best Pharmaceuticals For Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. The unanimous support of the committee for this bill is a testament to the open process and bi-partisan nature in which the committee members and staff on both sides of the aisle conducted these negotiations.

I would like to thank our Chairman, Mr. Dingell, and our Health Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Pallone, for their work on this important legislation, and encourage my colleagues to support this important bill. These necessary changes at the FDA will go a long way toward restoring the American public's confidence in the agency and its ability to ensure the safety of the nation's drug supply.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding to me. And I want to thank this House, Madam Speaker, because earlier this year we passed a bill and it has been signed by the President naming the Department of Education building for Lyndon Baines Johnson. A lot of our goal was to make sure that Lady Bird was alive when that was done. And it was. When President Bush signed the bill, she actually heard; because of her illness she couldn't be in Washington, but she heard the bill signing and the great things said about the legacy of President Johnson and the Johnson family.

And all of us share the loss of the Johnson family and the loss of Lady Bird. She literally defined the term ``lady'' for those of us who knew her.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1701) to provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance (TMA) and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation that provides a 3-month extension to the transitional medical assistance program under Medicaid.

TMA provides vital support for low-income American families moving off welfare and into work. Under the TMA program, families whose earnings would otherwise make them ineligible for Medicaid can receive up to 12 months of Medicaid coverage. Without TMA, many families transitioning from welfare to work would go without health insurance and could end up back on welfare.

Families leaving welfare often encounter difficulties such as securing health insurance because they have taken low-wage jobs that do not offer employer-sponsored health coverage. In some cases this choice could serve as a deterrent to returning to work, and we want to provide folks with as many incentives as possible to return to work. According to the Congressional Research Service, 79 percent of people with incomes of at least 200 percent of the Federal poverty level benefit from employer-sponsored health insurance, yet only 19 percent of working-age individuals with incomes below the poverty line receive health care coverage through employment. These are folks who earn $10,210 or less a year. If they can't get coverage through their employer, it is essentially cost-prohibitive for them to purchase health insurance.

No one should be made to choose between a job and health insurance. Thanks to TMA, many Americans are spared this tough choice and allowed to move off welfare and into a job while maintaining their health coverage. Without TMA, many of our most vulnerable Americans would be unable to access the health coverage they need.

In my State of Texas, TMA helps provide more than 111,000 people each month continued treatment for ongoing health care needs. A gap in care would be particularly problematic for the one out of four mothers in the program who are in poor or fair health yet transitioning from welfare to work. The extensions of the program is critical to their continued access to necessary health care.

Again in Texas, TMA also reimburses medical providers for more than $300 million in annual expenses for acute medical care, prescription drugs, and other approved Medicaid services. Without TMA, these costs for medically necessary services would be shifted to local governments or charitable organizations, or worse, the client may not receive needed care at all.

Mr. Speaker, TMA enjoys wide-ranging bipartisan support. The National Governors Association strongly supports TMA and its extension. According to the National Governors Association, ``without access to regular health care, health problems of a new worker or the worker's family members are likely to lead to greater absenteeism and possibly job loss.''

TMA is also supported by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of State Medicaid Directors. The administration also supports this vital program as evidenced by the fact that the President included a 1-year extension of TMA in his fiscal year 2008 budget proposal.

Mr. Speaker, in the past Congress has always acted in bipartisan fashion to extend TMA in combination with an equal extension of Federal abstinence education programs. While there is no shortage of debate or opinion on the merits of abstinence education programs, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this approach, at least for the short term, so we can ensure that hardworking American families don't lose their health care under

the transitional medical assistance program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the report accompanying H.R. 2643 urges the Environmental Protection Agency to study the health and environmental effects of using trona in air pollution control systems. Trona is a naturally occurring, non-toxic mineral widely used in food additives, in glass manufacturing, paper, laundry products and medicine. It is odorless, non-combustible and stable in the air. Trona is a key ingredient of baking soda. In the United States, the Green River Basin of Wyoming is home to the world's largest deposit of this incredibly useful mineral, and the Wyoming trona industry alone produces close to 20 million tons of trona and employs more than 2,000 people every year.

For almost 20 years, trona has also played a critical and growing role in air pollution control at coal-fired power plants, cement plants, municipal incinerators and similar facilities around the country, including Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Washington. Texas-based Solvay Chemicals, Inc. pioneered the use of trona in air pollution control systems, and it is the only company in the United States that produces trona products for that purpose.

Trona works in air pollution control systems, and it works well. The EPA, which has repeatedly approved the use of trona in air pollution control systems since 1989, reports that those systems have actually reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 85 percent and hydrochloric acid emissions by 95 percent at several power plants around the country, without increasing particulate matter emissions.

I rise today in strong support of the Conaway Amendment.

Supply and demand for energy is out of whack and our Nation needs more energy. Demand for natural gas is already building up across the economy, and proposals pushing cleaner energy will only accelerate this demand.

This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's energy crisis with a national solution. I feel justified in supporting this amendment because I am from a coastal district. My constituents feel the same way as I do on this issue.

Chemical production and oil and gas exploration, processing, and refining are Texas's top coastal industries. My colleagues from Florida and California think only they have beaches, but coastal tourism is Texas's second largest coastal industry.

That fact alone shows the argument that oil and gas production and coastal tourism are mutually exclusive is just plain wrong. They are acting like Chicken Little, and cannot point to one beach in Texas that has been ruined by oil or natural gas production.

There will be less need for LNG facilities and LNG tankers when we tap our own offshore resources so we can use the safest mode of transportation in the world--pipelines.

My point is not that we can drill our way to cheap oil or drill our way to energy independence. If we allow domestic production to die out, conservation and research will not save us, and we will have to pay a terrible economic price.

I urge my colleagues to support oil and gas production and support the Conaway Amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks, let me talk about some of the remarks and the comments that have been made. I know we've heard a study quoted about $3.50 natural gas. Right now if you can find $3.50 natural gas anywhere, we ought to buy it because now it's $6 to $7 per million cubic feet for natural gas right now. And so whatever studies talk about $3, $3.30, whatever, is really not relevant.

I represent a district that we actually have zero emitting natural gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Zero emitting for air pollution, zero emitting for water pollution. And I've offered many times to take colleagues who've never been to a natural gas offshore well to just come to the Gulf of Mexico, either off of Texas or Louisiana or maybe Mississippi or Alabama where folks also drill off the coast.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest producing fuels we can use. I'm a strong supporter of this Peterson amendment to allow the Department of the Interior to issue new leases for offshore natural gas in areas 25 miles off the coast. We're not talking about 3 miles off the coast. We're not talking about 10 miles. We're talking about 25 miles.

This amendment has less to do with fossil fuels and everything to do with helping Congress address our climate change and transition America to a clean energy future. If you are for renewables, if you're for cleaner power, if you're for low-emitting vehicles, if you're for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then you should be increasing the access to the domestic natural gas supplies.

Demand for natural gas is already building across our economy, and proposals pushing cleaner energy will only accelerate the demand. That's because it takes a lot of natural gas to make the materials for our economy that make it more energy efficient. Insulation, weatherization materials, thermal windows, appliances, lightweight vehicle parts, low-resistance tires, compact fluorescent light bulbs, heat reflecting coatings, house wrap, the list goes on and on. All are made from materials that are directly made from natural gas.

It also takes natural gas to make materials that make wind turbine blades and solar panels to run biomass facilities and to run cleaner burn power plants.

One example is right here in the Capitol where our Speaker and majority leader directed the Chief Administrative Officer, our CAO of the House, to develop a green Capitol initiative. The CAO officer announced last week that his strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from the Capitol power plant was to use natural gas instead of coal, which will lower CO2 emissions by 30 percent from 2006 level. This is equivalent to taking 1,900 cars off the road each year.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to back up their support for addressing both climate change and by supporting domestically produced natural gas in the environmentally responsible Peterson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my Pennsylvania colleague for yielding to me.

This is similar to the earlier amendment, although I rise in strong support of this because it is for new leases, offshore natural gas and oil, at least 100 miles of the U.S. coast.

Supply and demand for our energy is out of control and our Nation needs more energy from all sources. Demand for natural gas is already building across the economy and proposals pushing cleaner energy will only accelerate this demand. Natural gas, again, is the most abundant clean-burning fuel to heat and cool our homes and businesses. We also need a lot of natural gas to make the materials that we make wind turbine blades out of and solar blades.

Opening the OCS would save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 years for customers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are sending manufacturing jobs overseas following the cheap gas. When I had the Shell CEO of Western Hemisphere two years ago sit in my office and say they transferred jobs from their chemical facilities in our country to the Netherlands because of the high cost of our natural gas, because the North Sea gas was so much cheaper, that is why we need the Peterson amendments.

Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom are safely producing natural gas in their coastal waters. Why can't we do it?

No other country in the world can it do as responsibly as we can. I have been on oil and gas rigs and have seen so few discharges into the ocean. A medium-sized fishing boat will leak more in a year than we will see off some of our rigs.

This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's energy crisis and the climate change with a national solution. I urge my colleagues to support the oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf and support the Peterson amendment.