Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker and Members, our job is to protect our Nation. We have thousands of young men and women who are doing it today.

I believed in early 2003 we should do more to capture or eliminate the people who caused the 9/11 attacks. They were predominantly in Afghanistan, not in Iraq.

Today it seems we have a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and increasing attacks in Iraq on our troops and Iraqi citizens.

We have seen success in capturing Saddam and eliminating al Zarqawi. I have never doubted the ability of our young men and women in our Armed Forces. We saw what they were capable of doing in the first days of the war when they stormed Iraq and Baghdad within days, overwhelming the Iraqi forces.

The accomplishments we have seen in Iraq can be attributed directly to these troops' discipline and persistence in fighting the insurgency.

Mistakes have been made, and the most experienced members of our Armed Forces have pointed that out. One of the individuals who spoke out was retired Marine General, Former Chief of U.S. Central Command Anthony Zinni, who said, ``We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening, it worries us. Poor military judgments has been used throughout this mission.''

As this war has gone on, the lack of planning and poor judgment by this administration has become more apparent.

I have here the May 1, 2003 press release from the White House in which President Bush, on board the U.S. Abraham Lincoln, declared all major combat operations have ended. We now know that this was one miscalculation among many.

Since that time, seven young men from our 29th Congressional district in Texas have lost their lives in Iraq. Across this Nation, 2,300 service personnel, men and women have lost their lives since the President made these remarks.

Reading over these remarks, it is clear that the administration had no clear plan for securing Iraq after the invasion and no clue about what was to follow the next 3 years.

Given the size and the strength and the effectiveness of the insurgency, the administration's intelligence should have given some indication that there would be problems down the road and done a better job of preparing both our public and, more importantly, our troops on what was to come the following month and the following years.

It is clear that we did not have enough troops on the ground immediately after the invasion, and that shortage continues.

Congress doesn't direct troops on the ground. We are not the Commander in Chief. But we are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, and therefore we need an honest and open debate about what is occurring in Iraq.

I strongly disagree with the way the administration planned and carried out this war. I will continue, though, to vote for the defense appropriations and the supplemental dollars because we have to give our troops protections that they need, and we learn every day that they need even more.

Many brave men and women have given their lives in Baghdad and all across Iraq. We honor those families for their sacrifice, their ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, this war is not the one we anticipated fighting or the war we were led to believe we were getting into, but I believe we must leave a secure Iraq that can defend itself and be a symbol for democracy to prosper.

Mr. Speaker, it is our job to protect our Nation and we have thousands of young men and women doing that today. I believed in early 2003 that we should do more to capture or eliminate the people who caused the 9/11 attacks. They were predominately in Afghanistan. Today it seems we have a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and increasing attacks in Iraq on our troops and Iraqi citizens.

We have seen success in capturing Saddam and eliminating AI-Zarqawi. I have never doubted the ability of the men and women of our Armed Forces--we saw what they were capable of in the first days of the war when they stormed Iraq and Baghdad within days, overwhelming the Iraqi forces. The accomplishments we have seen in Iraq can be attributed directly to the troops' discipline and persistence in fighting the insurgency.

Mistakes have been made, and some of the most experienced members of our Armed Forces have pointed that out. One of the individuals who spoke out was retired Marine General and former chief of U.S. Central Command Anthony Zinni who said:

We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to

accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from

them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it

worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout

this mission.

As this war has gone on, the lack of planning and poor judgment by this administration has become more apparent. I have here the May 1, 2003 press release here from the White House in which President Bush-- on board USS Abraham Lincoln--declared all major combat operations have ended. We now know that this was one miscalculation among many. Since that time seven young men from our 29th Congressional District in Texas have lost their lives; across our nation over 2,300 servicemen and women have lost their lives since the President made those remarks. Reading over these remarks it is clear that the administration had no clear plan for securing Iraq after the invasion, and had no clue about what was to follow for the next three years.

Given the size, strength and effectiveness of the insurgency, the administration's intelligence should have given some indication that there would be problems down the road and done a better job of preparing the public and more importantly our troops for what was to come in the following month and years. It is clear that we did not have enough troops on the ground immediately after the invasion, and that shortage continues. Fortunately, thanks to the relentless efforts by our Armed Forces, progress is being made.

Congress does not direct troops on the ground and we are not the Commander-in-Chief, but we are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle and therefore we must debate what is occurring in Iraq. While I disagree with the way the administration planned and carried out this war, I support our troops and will continue to vote for Defense appropriations and supplemental dollars.

Many brave men and women have given their lives in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul and across Iraq to bring peace and democracy to that country. We honor them, their families, and the ultimate sacrifice they made serving their country. I want our troops to come home soon.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the war we anticipated fighting or the war we were led to believe we were getting into, but I believe we

must finish our mission to leave a secure Iraq that can defend itself and be a symbol that democracy can prosper in the Muslim world.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

I rise in support of the bipartisan LoBiondo-Poe-Oberstar amendment on foreign ownership.

The bottom line on this issue is that the DOT's rulemaking runs very close to violating the law that Congress set down for the airline industry. The statue says that U.S. airlines must be controlled by U.S. citizens. The DOT rule would allow foreign investors to own 49 percent, but the foreign investors would be allowed to effectively control the operations. Unfortunately, I do not see how it is possible to separate safety and military airlifts. If foreign owners can control scheduling, staffing, and maintenance, then U.S. owners are not in control of the safety or the military obligations. The proposed rule does not make sense and the DOT should not give foreign control over U.S. airlines just because the European Community is asking for it. Airlines are not just another business. They are an essential form of transportation with many impacts on public policy.

Foreign investment in airlines is a major decision for Congress, not the Department of Transportation. Therefore, we should support the LoBiondo-Poe-Oberstar amendment and reject the DOT rule.

I would like to thank my Houston neighbor for yielding me the balance of her time.

Racial intolerance has divided this country since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The history of immigrants coming to this country teaches us that when one particular ethnic group comes to this country in large numbers, that group becomes the target of false suspicions and contempt. This has been true in our Nation's history, whether it be the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, or Chinese immigrants.

In 1921, Congress passed the first immigration restrictions because we were worried immigrants were coming in and taking our jobs. Now today we face a similar climate. We navigate through our latest effort to address immigration in this country with Hispanics, mostly from Mexico. Just last month, in my home county, we had a young Mexican American teenager who was nearly beaten to death and sexually assaulted by two white teenagers who were known to be racist.

Unfortunately, our country has seen a rise in crimes targeting particular races, ethnicities, and genders over the past few years. To combat this growing trend, many States and the Federal Government have considered and passed legislation designated as hate crimes legislation. If someone attacks me or my property because I am an Anglo, that is a crime and they should be punished. But if they attack me because I am an Anglo and they destroy my property or attack me, that should have a higher punishment level. And that is true in this country and it should be true in many of our States, and we need to make sure that happens. It is bad enough to have your property or you hurt, but somebody just doing wrong against you but doing it because they don't like your race, your ethnicity, the color of your skin, your religion or your gender is just wrong. Everyone should be protected from hate crimes regardless of where they occur.

Our Federal law only covers hate crimes if it is a federally protected activity. This young man was actually at a private residence, so the U.S. Attorney says they can't file a hate crime in Texas. We are still working on the state law. Hopefully, the district attorney will do it.

All Americans should be outraged by these video games that the Internet depicts shooting caricatures of Mexicans crossing our border. This only incites needless hatred and creates more confusion on an issue that is already complicated. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in denouncing and stopping any racial overtones surrounding the immigration issue. Our country is made up of immigrants; we all came from somewhere. Some of us were lucky enough, our parents got here sooner than others, but we are representative of every nationality and every ethnicity in the world.

I thank Congressman Baca for putting this together and my colleague from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5576, the appropriations act for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development.

I want to note two important Houston-area projects that received funding in this legislation: METRO Solutions and the Harrisburg grade separation.

The $2.5 million for METRO is a very small amount compared to our need for transit investment in Houston, particularly for light rail.

However, we are very grateful for this amount, because in previous years members of our Houston delegation blocked any funding in this bill for Houston light rail.

We will never know how many millions went to other projects around the country because our delegation was not united behind a plan.

Thankfully, this situation has now changed, and we have a commitment from our delegation to pursue $1 billion over 10 years for Houston light rail.

Unfortunately, it does not look like we will be able to meet that commitment. As a result, the process at the FTA is taking on much greater importance.

METRO must cut through the red-tape at FTA and get approval for their project and a full funding grant agreement if the Northside Line and East End Line are going to be a reality.

We are going to need all the funding we can get if we want to upgrade the BRT to light rail as quickly as possible to meet the expectations of the voters in the referendum.

The other important project for Houston is the Harrisburg Grade Separation. The bill contains $300,000 to get this project started in the design phase.

East End Houston has entirely too many inconvenient and unsafe grade crossings, and a grade separation at Harrisburg will provide easy access and prevent rail/auto/truck accidents for area residents.

We have just started construction on our Manchester grade separation, so it is fitting that we are starting at the beginning of the process for another very important intersection.

This project will fit in well with the effort to reorganize the freight rail system for Harris County and surrounding counties, because the most relief from freight rail traffic needs to be in the areas with the most impact.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for their work on this bill and also thank our Houston area appropriator, John Culberson for his help, particularly with the METRO funding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great friend and a great journalist. After more than thirty years working in journalism, Wanda Garner Cash, will be leaving her post as Publisher and Editor of the Baytown Sun this June as she becomes a senior lecturer and fellow at the University of Texas School of Journalism. She will be serving as the first fellow to the S. Griffin Singer Professorship, a fellowship created to honor a former University of Texas professor.

Since receiving her bachelor's degree in journalism in 1971 from the University of Texas, she has served in a variety of capacities for a variety of organizations. Mrs. Cash worked as the assistant managing editor of The Galveston County Daily News, editor of the Kerrville Daily News, executive editor of the Brazosport Facts, and most recently as publisher and editor of the Baytown Sun.

Her success in the realm of journalism spans further than prestigious job titles. In addition to being an accomplished print journalist, Mrs. Cash has served as a member of the Legislative Advisory Committee where she has been a staunch advocate of open government and has testified before the Texas Legislature on numerous occasions. She has also been a mentor for young journalists and is recognized for always taking time to help young journalists develop their own talents. This quality will serve her students well as she enters the college arena this June.

The city of Baytown will miss Mrs. Cash and her dedication to the Baytown community. She has served as the vice-chair and chair of the Baytown West Chambers County Economic Development Foundation, chaired a variety of fundraising events such as the annual Baytown Area United Way fund-raising campaign.

Her dedication to the community and her commitment to journalistic integrity will be missed in the city of Baytown, but I wish her well as she begins her tenure at the University of Texas. A loss for the City of Baytown is a gain for the students, the University of Texas and the journalism profession.

Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose, granting a nationwide cable television franchise to provide competition.

Today, cable television is a series of local monopolies. Only 2 percent of the United States has competition, companies that those local franchises are aggressively marketing, Voice Over IP, telephone service, broadband, and giving them a triple play of video, broadband and voice services at a flat monthly rate.

In Houston, that monthly rate is about $100 and you can get digital cable, high speed Internet and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company. To compete with the cable's triple-play monopoly, telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry the high-definition cable television service and faster broadband.

The FCC has found that cable television rates drop 40 percent after competition. And that doesn't even factor in the consumer benefits from the triple play, so to speak, that you add, also the cost savings from telephone Internet and high speed cable service, definition service.

As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple-play competition.

The purpose of the bill is great, and I have had a number of concerns about the district I represent that is not a wealthy area. These concerns have been addressed.

For example, franchise areas are defined as they are today that would prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking areas out of existing franchises. This means that the bill's redlining provisions, drafted by my colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, would stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to serve. I would have preferred Mr. Dingell's

approach, but again we don't have that opportunity, and it didn't pass in committee even though I voted for it.

However, I still strongly support the legislation because we have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in my area. As a result, I am confident that the build- out will increase in all areas of Houston, and they are not just going to go to the high-income areas; they will come to my low-wealth and my middle class area.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place my full statement into the Record, and I would hope that this would be a compromise bill. I am sorry that our leadership and the committee didn't work it. But some day, hopefully, it will be the Barton-Dingell bill again.

Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose: granting nationwide cable television franchises to provide competition.

Today cable television is a series of local monopolies--only 2 percent of the U.S. has competition.

Companies with these local franchises are aggressively marketing VOIP telephone service and broadband, giving them a ``triple play'' of video, broadband, and voice services at a flat monthly rate.

In Houston, for $100 a month, you can get digital cable, high speed Internet, and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company.

To compete with cable's triple play monopoly, telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry high- definition cable television service and faster broadband.

The Federal Communications Commission has found that cable television rats drop 40 percent after competition and that doesn't even factor in the consumer benefits of the triple play.

As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple play competition.

The purpose of the bill is great, but I did have a number of concerns about this legislation and its effects on the middle-class folks in my district. These concerns have been addressed.

For example, franchise areas in the bill were defined as they are today, which would prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking areas out of existing franchise areas.

This means that the bill's anti-redlining provisions, drafted by Congressman Bobby Rush, will stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to offer service.

I would have preferred the approach by Mr. Dingell, which would have set reasonable, flexible guidelines for companies to build out their networks and offer new services.

I wish we could have considered Mr. Dingell's amendment today, and I am disappropriated that the Rules Committee rejected it.

They did a disservice to one of the most knowledgeable, respected Members in the history of Congress.

However, I can still strongly support this legislation because we have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in the Houston area.

As a result of those conversations, I am confident that buildout is going to increase in all areas of Houston and that they are not going to discriminate against our middle class and low wealth areas.

To all members who are concerned about the impact of this legislation on your district, I encourage you to contact your incumbent telecom company and meet with their local staff responsible for deployment, not just the DC staff. I think you will be happy with what you hear.

Cities are also concerned with their interests in franchising, but many of these concerns have been addressed. Cities will not lose any revenue as a result of this bill. The COPE Act allows 5 percent franchise fees and 1 percent public access fees.

Cities will also not lose any right-of-way control and to make sure, I included an amendment in Committee to require companies to certify in writing that they will obey local right of way rules.

I do regret that the usual bi-partisan telecom process between the leadership of our Committee has temporarily broken down.

Today is not the end of the road, so I hope this can still become a Barton-Dingell bill or a Dingell-Barton bill before all is said and done.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am also the pride of the whole State of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I will include my full statement in the Record, and I will paraphrase it.

The Internet is made of numerous interconnected, privately owned networks. It has become the amazing resource it is today without the law on network Internet neutrality.

The FCC, in 2005, released four network neutrality principles and they are in this language. H.R. 5252 enacts these network principles into the law, sending a strong anti- or nondiscrimination message to the telecommunications industry.

As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment will use these four principles in their rhetoric, but their amendment adds a much different network neutrality principle. The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how much bandwidth they are using.

The Markey amendment means higher praises for the consumers, those of us who pay monthly, while large Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the Internet that is the most need for investment.

Supporters claim the Internet companies pay for their network. The problem is, with television and video, it requires more bandwidth. They have got to make that investment. Are we going to put it on our constituents individually, or are the people who are making the money going to pay for it?

The Internet is made of numerous interconnected privately-owned networks, and it became the amazing resource it is today without any law on Internet network neutrality.

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission released four network neutrality principles:

(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice;

(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of safe, legal devices; and

(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network, application, service, and content providers.

Some people say we need to pass the Markey amendment to prevent blocking of websites or anticompetitive behavior. This is not the case.

The (COPE) Act, H.R. 5252, enacts these net neutrality principles into law, sending a strong non-discrimination message to the telecommunications industry.

As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment will use these four FCC principles for their rhetoric, but their amendment adds a much different network neutrality principle.

The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how much bandwidth they are using.

The Markey amendment means higher prices for consumers while large Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the Internet that is in most need of investment.

Supporters claim that if Internet companies pay their way on the network we will hurt entrepreneurs.

Any website that takes up a lot of bandwidth already has always paid more to Internet backbone providers if they are putting a lot of content on the Internet and generating a lot of traffic.

Now many of these companies are complaining about paying local Internet network owners for the use of their networks.

The issue for the future is when websites offer high-bandwidth services like high-definition movies, television, and video games from websites, all over the Internet.

These applications require guaranteed high quality service, something that's not usually available on the Internet today.

To upgrade the ``last mile'' of broadband to accommodate these new services while keeping consumer prices low, telephone and cable companies may need to offer premium service to large Internet content companies.

The Markey amendment bans this commercial arrangement and sends the whole bill to the consumers.

Congress should ensure that no Internet service is blocked or degraded by cable or telephone companies, and the COPE Act does just that.

This point is so important we should repeat it: the underlying text of the COPE Act puts network neutrality into law for the first time. No anticompetitive discrimination is allowed.

The Markey amendment goes much further, and regulates the price of Internet traffic between large network operators and large Internet content providers.

A good definition of wisdom is not how much you know, but if you know what you don't know.

Most of us do not fully understand how the Internet works on a detailed basis or the financial arrangements that build our networks.

The Internet has thrived without Congressional intervention on prices and commercial arrangements, and it will do so in the future. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I feel a great injustice is being done to our Nation. It seems that our Republican colleagues decided to place the concerns of the American people aside so they can continue to divide us. Mr. Speaker, our country needs solutions to problems. Unfortunately, the majority is so out of touch with the average citizens of this Nation, they refuse to see the true important issues. Americans are worried about how they are going to pay for their children's college tuition. That is why we have a plan on helping parents better afford college by doubling the amount they can write off for their children's tuition.

America is worried about how they are going to pay for their high energy bills. That is why we need an energy package that ends our dependence on foreign oil.

These are issues that are important to all our citizens. We need a change from the ``no solution'' rhetoric of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The American citizens are tired of the division of our Nation. We need to unite our Nation and begin to govern not just for the few but for all.

That is what we have been elected to do and that is what we should demand of ourselves. It is time for a new agenda here in Washington, one that focuses on the issues of all Americans, not just the few.

Mr. Speaker, most of us remember Super Bowl XXXVIII, but

not for the reason that most of us Houstonians would like.

The game was a great showcase for Houston and one of the best in Super Bowl history. The New England Patriots edged out the Carolina Panthers by a score of 32 to 29 in a wild fourth quarter that ended with an Adam Vinatieri field goal with four seconds left.

Unfortunately, Americans remember that game for the offensive halftime show featuring Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson.

Performers can do whatever they like on their albums, or on subscription services like HBO, and as a Member of Congress I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect all Americans' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression.

But public obscenity purely designed to shock people has no place on primetime broadcast television using the public's airwaves.

Almost every American home has a television and there is nothing a parent can do to protect against indecency on broadcast radio or television.

American families should have the right to watch the Super Bowl without expecting indecent performances, and the current FCC fines were clearly not a deterrent. Therefore, this legislation increases the fines for broadcast indecency by 10 times.

However, the Commission should only use this power against blameworthy broadcasters. A $325,000 fine is a much bigger stick for the FCC to use against indecent broadcasters, so the level of responsibility of the FCC must also increase.

When an independent affiliate airs network programming that turns out to be indecent, the FCC should only punish an affiliate if there was a reasonable opportunity to review questionable taped material or reason to know that such material was likely.

In cases where only the network knows what is going on the air, it stands to reason that only the network should bear the burden for such violations.

Section 503(b)(2)(D) allows the FCC to consider the circumstances of a violation in determining the amount of a penalty. The Commission should use that power wisely and recognize that you cannot deter indecent programming by fining independent affiliates with no control over the content.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5449, which would move current and future contract disputes between the FAA and the air traffic controllers to the Federal Services Impasse Panel.

Current law has an extremely unusual disadvantage for our Nation's air traffic controllers: if their union negotiators cannot reach a contract agreement with FAA, then the FAA can impose a contract unless Congress says otherwise within 60 days.

The FAA declared an impasse in the negotiations and has stated that they will be imposing their terms unilaterally within a matter of days in the face of majority opposition in Congress.

This is an extreme burden that few other American workers, if any, must meet in their contract negotiations. Current FAA contract law grants too much power to the FAA management and makes a mockery of the collective bargaining process.

H.R. 5449 is a good compromise, because we as Congress are not taking sides and picking the air traffic controllers contract offer or pick the FAA's contract offer.

The bill is good policy because Congress is not the best place to negotiate the details of employment contracts. Instead, this legislation would place the decision in a specialized board that has plenty of experience mediating federal workers' contract disputes.

The Federal Services Impasse Panel is fair--they resolve numerous disputes in favor of different sides, sometimes going with the agencies' positions and sometimes with federal employees.

The air traffic controllers in the Houston Center and the Houston TRACON and throughout Texas deserve the same fair shake in arbitration that other federal workers receive.

Much of the opposition to this legislation and to air traffic controllers in general comes from groups that voice knee-jerk opposition to any and all federal spending. They fail to offer any answers to the simple fact that air traffic controllers have a hard, complicated job with extremely high stakes.

I doubt that many of the opponents to this bill have ever been in an air traffic control tower, or a control center or a TRACON when a large bank of flights comes into a major hub airport.

We want our skies to be safe, and you don't get safety by cutting corners and nickel and dimeing the workforce.

Our air traffic control system is about to experience a wave of retirements. If we want to recruit quality employees to keep us and our children flying safely into the future, we should approve H.R. 5449.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the legislation authorizing oil and gas exploration in ANWR. The House debated this bill many times, and many of the arguments are so familiar I think that some of us could stand up here without even talking points; but I think we need to hear some other points today.

Most importantly, oil and gas development does not destroy the environment. This bill only affects 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres. Oil and gas development on the North Slope has not reduced wildlife, destroyed caribou or other animals. I have been to Alaska and the North Slope a number of times. In fact, when I was there one time in August, the only thing I saw was white because it was a blizzard. That was in the middle of August. I don't know, maybe global warming has changed that since I was there 6 years ago.

We have been pumping at Prudhoe Bay for 30 years, and that is just 80 miles west of ANWR. The less we produce domestically, the more oil tankers we have to bring into our ports. And at least the oil tankers in Alaska are U.S. flag ships and we know they are U.S. crews, unlike the tankers that bring in the oil from other places in the world that are staffed by anyone.

It is true that passing this bill will not lower gas prices immediately, but in the medium term it will. If we had opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2000-2001, that supply would have helped us when the Gulf of Mexico production was shut down last year because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

When oil is flowing from ANWR to the continental United States, our economy would be much stronger. The price for oil in the U.S. would have fewer spikes, and we would be less vulnerable to foreign nations using the ``oil weapon.''

Opponents of ANWR also say we should do alternatives instead of ANWR. We need to do both. I supported the energy bill with its historic move to ethanol, and I fully support major U.S. research efforts into alternative transportation technologies. However, there is not enough corn in the U.S. to make 100 percent ethanol for all the U.S. cars, and hydrogen fuel cells are still years away for the average American.

Most of us are going to be using gasoline made from crude oil for the next 15-20 years. Oil and gas development in ANWR is not the final solution, but it is the bridge to the future of energy technology.

Finally, ANWR is also an important issue for working families who are most at risk from the spikes in the price of gasoline and who are the least able to take advantage of these alternatives.

This legislation is expected to provide 250,000 to 1 million jobs for American families, and that is why organized labor supports this bill. Many opponents of ANWR drive SUVs, and they can afford the high gas prices. In my district, they cannot afford the high cost of hybrids. But working families are going to need affordable gasoline for the next 15-20 years until the price of alternatives comes down.

Mr. Speaker, you can be pro-ANWR and pro-alternative, and that is why I ask support for H.R. 5429.

Environmentally fragile, I have heard that so much. I represent an area on the western Gulf of Mexico, and we are also environmentally fragile, but we have been producing for America for a number of years. We just need some help from other areas in our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and also the Chair of the committee for bringing the bill up. I also want to thank my good friend from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I want to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of $43 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 million in operations and maintenance for the Houston Ship Channel.

The navigation funding goes towards important environmental restoration work in the deepening and widening project. We are at the end of that project now.

The operations and maintenance funding is not as much needed to keep the channel at its authorized depth, but I am concerned by the lack of O&M maybe not only for the channel but for others. Our problem is that if the channel silts up, those oil tankers that we bring in with crude oil to our refineries, we will have to off-load or lighten them off the coast, and it will actually raise the price of our gasoline. The O&M is a concern that I have with gas prices so high. We don't really want to build all that extra cost into the refining.

I also want to thank the committee for the portion of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center in Wyoming. The energy bill last year authorized this funding, so we can actually drill horizontally 50,000 feet instead of what we currently do. Again, it is something that will help us to get more reasonably priced products.

I do have some concern also about the lack of flood control funding, because I not only represent an energy-producing area but we are also a low-lying area. The Corps $4.98 billion is a cut of $345 million from last year, but I am pleased the committee went above the President's budget by $250 million.

I have three projects, Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou and Halls Bayou, that were flooded with Allison in 2001; and we are on a road to try and get those so we don't have those massive floods like we did in 2001. I would hope that the committee would look at the cost-benefit ratio so that we don't see those floods. These homes are not vacation homes. They are blue-collar folks' homes that actually work at those refineries that were flooded in 2001.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee would look at those in the conference committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.

I do wish to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of $43 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 million in operation and maintenance for the ship channel.

I have serious concerns with the lack of flood control funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The bill provides the Corps $4.98 billion, a cut of $345 million below last year. I am pleased that the Committee was able to go $250 million above the President's request, but unfortunately that increase was not enough.

We requested funding for three federal flood control projects in our Harris County, TX, district--Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Halls Bayou--and not one of these projects was funded. These projects are all properly authorized.

Congress has funded Greens Bayou and Hunting Bayou for many years in a row now, and the general reevaluation review for Greens Bayou is almost complete. We need only $488,000 more to finish it.

We are told the subcommittee has a preference for completing existing projects and studies. As a result, I hope they will reconsider both of their decisions on Greens Bayou, which could have a completed study this year with funding, and Hunting Bayou, which is an ongoing construction project.

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.

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.

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.

It is particularly shocking that these projects were zeroed out this year because these flood-prone areas are now home to thousands of Katrina evacuees.

I am very concerned that we are going into a cycle of increased hurricane activity at the same time that we are failing to make the necessary flood control investments for our coastal cities.

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.

I do wish to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of $43 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 million in operations and maintenance for the ship channel.

The navigation funding will go towards important environmental restoration work included in the deepening and widening project, keeping

our commitment to our region's environment and ecology strong.

The O&M funding is not as much as needed to keep the channel at its authorized depth, and I would alert the committee that if the channel is silted up too much, oil tankers will have a hard time getting to the major gasoline refineries.

With gas prices at the current high levels and supplies tight, we cannot risk another supply constraint.

I also want to thank the committee for funding a portion of the 2005 Energy Policy Act: the research into extended reach drilling at the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center in Wyoming.

This research promises to extend drilling up to 50,000 feet in three dimensions, which will allow us to recover more resources with fewer drill sites.

Congress's interest in this project is justified because of its potential to reduce the environmental cost of oil and gas production.

Mr. Chairman, I support the bill today, but I am making an urgent plea for flood control funding for Harris County. We dodged Hurricane Rita last year; over the next couple of years we may not be so lucky.

We don't want to look back on the next few hurricane seasons with the same regrets as we did after Hurricane Katrina.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Earlier this year we watched as the Palestinian people went to the polls and voted into power a group that has employed car bombings, suicide bombings, mortar attacks, Qassam rocket attacks, and assassinations to achieve its stated goal of destroying Israel.

Last January, Hamas--the radical Islamic Palestinian organization that has sought to expel Jews and destroy the state of Israel to establish an Islamic Palestinian state based on Islamic law--won a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council.

This group has been recognized by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization, and has committed hundreds of acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens since its creation in 1987.

I fully support the democratic process, but the views of Hamas are at odds with that process and its principles, and I do not believe we should continue providing funding to a group that's stated purpose is the destruction of another democratic country.

This legislation sends a message to Hamas, but protects humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people by continuing U.S. assistance through NGOs and USAID.

H.R. 4681 also gives the President authority to waive many of the provisions of the bill if Hamas changes its stance or a new Palestinian Authority government emerges.

We cannot allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to get in the hands of a Hamas- controlled government to be used against Israel, and this bill will prevent that from happening while protecting humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

Madam Speaker, we need to send Hamas a message that we will not stand by while it continues to endorse terrorism and violence.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4681.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Fifth Grade students of Herrera Elementary which is in my Congressional District for coming to visit us last week on their class field trip.

They came to Washington on their Fifth Grade class trip to learn about our Government and the history of our country. During their 5-day visit, they managed to visit Mt. Vernon and learn about George Washington and what it was like during the colonial era.

They toured several museums in the Smithsonian. The Museum of American History, the Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of the American Indian were all favorites of the students.

On their last full day in Washington, I met with the students of Herrera Elementary during their lunch break. No one knew that one of their most memorable experiences was yet to come.

On our way to the Capitol steps to take a picture, an ABC news crew approached us to ask us if we knew the words to the national anthem. The students and I sang the national anthem on the Capitol steps and the students made it onto ABC's Nightline.

The Students of Herrera Elementary did a great job when they sang the national anthem. They knew all the words and did not miss a note. This was also impressive because the news story on the national anthem stemmed from the controversy over a Spanish version of the national anthem.

Almost all the students from Herrera Elementary are Hispanic and all of them sang the national anthem perfectly in English. They proved that patriotism lives in people of all ages and all nationalities.

Again, I thank Principal Hector Rodriguez and the teachers and parents of Herrera Elementary for making the 5th Grade class trip possible. I especially thank the 5th Grade students for visiting our office and making their visit memorable by singing the national anthem on the steps of the Capitol.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for putting together this legislation and for the appropriations.

It is interesting because I do not serve on Armed Services or obviously Appropriations or Defense approps, but I think every Member of this House is affected by what is in this bill because all of us have seen our young men and women who have come back, who have been injured, and that is what this bill is about, the VA medical facilities, the medical facilities for these service personnel who are injured, and it is great to hear some of the good things that are in this bill. I know it is under very strict limitations, but I want to thank the committee for doing this.

I want to talk about something that is very specific briefly, about an important project in my own area. Now, in Houston we do not have a base. We have a lot of reserve units, but we have the Ellington Field where they have F-16s, and we have a fire station that needs to be put in there. We have one that does not meet either Air Force standards or OSHA standards, and it is a facility that serves not only our Air National Guard but our Army National Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard, NASA, and of course, civil aircraft.

The existing facility, like I said, is rapidly deteriorating and does not meet either OSHA or Air Force standards. Roof leaks and lack of insulation result in equipment being destroyed and extremely high operating costs. The lack of adequate facilities and space do not allow for proper integration of female firefighters. Storage facilities do not exist and require hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of equipment to be stored outside, and traditional Guardsmen must store issued equipment at their homes.

New firefighting apparatus must be parked outside the station because they do not fit in the truck bays. Currently, our 147th has one fire truck valued at $1 million which is unable to fit into the station, and the unit is expecting delivery of another one this year. This results in slower response times, degraded performance, and vehicle deterioration.

The funding I requested for this new fire station will not only bring the facilities up to OSHA and Air Force standards but will protect the investments already made in the equipment in the base.

Plans are under way to move 2,300 Army, Navy and Marine Corps Reserve troops from elsewhere in the Houston area to Ellington to make it really a joint Reserve base. As this happens, we must ensure there is sufficient infrastructure to support these units.

Again, the fourth largest city in the country affecting not only Johnson Space Center and the petrochemical industry, but I would appreciate any consideration by the committee during the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I was really going to wait and discuss this on the Peterson amendment or at least on the Putnam-Capps amendment to strike the Peterson language that is in the bill, but listening to all the Members, I thought maybe we ought to at least have a voice that is on the other side.

I can't near entertain as much as my colleague from Hawaii, who I agree with on this, and I am not going to call environmentalists Taliban, but I know we have considered this amendment for over a year and this issue has been debated on this floor many times, including the energy bill last year.

Supply and demand for energy is out of whack and our Nation needs more energy. The Federal Government tried to mandate demand reduction in the last energy crisis and it contributed to a nationwide recession we do not want to repeat. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf could save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20 years for consumers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are sending manufacturing jobs overseas, following the cheap gas. Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom are safely and successfully producing natural gas from their coastal waters. Canada uses natural gas only wells in Lake Erie, but right across the line the U.S. is not allowed to do the same.

No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. I have been on oil and gas rigs and they have such few discharges into the ocean, a medium sized fishing boat will leak more in a year.

The Peterson language is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's energy crisis with a national solution. I feel justified in supporting the amendment because I come from a coastal district. My constituents feel the same way. Chemical production and oil and gas exploration, processing and refining are Texas' top coastal industries.

My colleagues from California and Florida think only they have beaches. We have coastal tourism and it is our second biggest income producer. That fact alone shows that the argument that oil and gas production and coastal tourism is mutually exclusive is just plain wrong.

I would close by saying if you're acting like Chicken Little and cannot point to one beach in Texas that has been ruined by oil and natural gas, then you should oppose the Putnam, Capps, et al. amendment.

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.

To address the needs of American families, we need a 3 pronged strategy. First, we need more production and infrastructure to meet our needs of today and tomorrow.

Second, we need more conservation to keep our economy going as resources become more competitive globally.

Third we need more research to transition our economy to future sources of energy, for a time when petrochemicals are only used for materials, and not as an everyday fuel.

Suppprting only long-term solutions and conservation is just not enough. It might be easier if it was, but we need to do more for today's energy problems. We will need continued American energy production for some time.

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 in the Outer Continental Shelf, and oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Members, I want to thank my colleague for yielding me a minute. I support his amendment. Obviously, I think that would be the ideal provision we need to do to eliminate that moratorium. The committee, I think, has struck a compromise on natural gas, although Congressman Poe and I know the difficulties of just drilling for one substance over the other. But obviously I support the amendment and I think the committee, though, came up with a compromise, and we will fight that battle later.