Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act.

The sponsors of this legislation have a laudable intent: To make health insurance more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to band together to increase their purchasing power and negotiate lower health insurance rates.

With costs in the private health insurance growing 12.8 percent each year, no one would disagree that our small businesses are struggling to provide coverage for their employees.

But this legislation is not the answer to the rising cost of health insurance in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the regulation of health insurance has long rested with the States.

For decades, State legislatures in each of our States have enacted State coverage mandates and consumer protections to ensure that residents of those States purchase a quality health insurance policy.

While some policies cost more than others, thanks to State regulations, consumers can be assured that all policies offer a minimum level of coverage.

In my home State of Texas, health plans must provide access to emergency services, immunizations for children, direct access to OB/ GYNs, and coverage of diabetes supplies and education--just to name a few guaranteed benefits.

The State has also enacted important consumer protection laws that afford consumers external review and limit how much insurers can charge sicker groups of people.

Under H.R. 525, however, the State would have no authority to ensure that Federal association health plans provide these benefits and consumer protections.

By taking away these vital patient protections, the policies purchased under AHPs would be worth little more than the paper they are printed on.

The amendment offered by our colleagues Mr. Kind and Mr. Andrews would correct many of the flaws in this legislation.

Specifically, the alternative would allow small businesses to purchase insurance through a Small Employees Health Benefit Plan-- similar to the Federal employees health plan.

The Kind/Andrews amendment would ensure that the quality of health plans is protected; that low income employees have assistance in purchasing policies; and that the smallest of small businesses get the additional assistance they need.

As a former small business employee charged with choosing my company's health plan, I am all too aware of the need for the assistance outlined in the Kind/Andrews amendment.

The employees choosing these health plans for small businesses most often are not human resources or insurance professionals.

The coverage and benefit mandates enacted by State legislatures ensure that small businesses won't fall victim to sham policies and that their employees can depend on quality health insurance when an illness strikes.

Because H.R. 525 eviscerates these assurances by preempting the laws enacted by State legislatures, I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and support the Kind/Andrews alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This bill will allow for the Postal Service to better serve the American People by significantly modernizing its outdated policies.

The last postal reform bill was signed by President Nixon in 1971 and at that time no one could have anticipated all of the technological advances our society would create. At that time we all sent letters to keep in contact with each other and email was something that we never could have imagined. Unfortunately, while we have advanced with the times, the Postal Service has been slow to keep up with our advancing technology. H.R. 22 will allow the Postal Service to continue providing comprehensive universal service, but at a much lower cost.

This bill is the product of hard work between the labor unions, the Postal Service, and the Government Reform Committee. It is a good piece of legislation that will give the Postal Service the rate modernization it needs and it will create a level playing field for the Postal Service to compete with other companies.

I strongly support this bill not only because my late father in-law was a letter carrier, but because the Postal Service has provided a vital service to the public for many years. It's time that we allow them to modernize so that we may continue to enjoy all of the benefits that they have afforded us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill to authorize funding for NASA programs over the next two fiscal years.

Over the years, NASA as a government agency has stream lined and reduced their cost and has done amazing research and developed innovative technology. They are a model agency which should be applauded as a role model for other government agencies to follow.

I am pleased this bill will authorize $150 million for maintenance and repair of the Hubble Space Telescope by a manned mission. As this bill states, the Hubble telescope is an ``extraordinary instrument'' that has given us immense understanding and knowledge about the far reaching edges of the universe since its launch in 1990.

I am also pleased this bill does not set a specific date for the retirement of the space shuttle. The shuttle has performed 113 flights since 1981, and is crucial to our vision of space exploration. While I agree we need to move beyond the shuttle at some point, we should not retire our only means for transporting humans into space without having a replacement vehicle ready to continue that mission.

One of the most important benefits NASA provides does not occur on the launch pad, in the laboratories, or in space however, but in the classrooms of schools across this country. NASA is to science and math, what the National Football League and the National Basketball Association are to amateur sports; our space program inspires high school, middle school, and even elementary school students to take an interest in math and science.

Since 1997, I have had the privilege of having NASA astronauts visit middle schools in the congressional district I represent. The interaction of these middle school students with the astronauts and the questions they ask about space and NASA, demonstrate the benefits of our space program and the impact it has in getting students excited about these subjects.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Houston delegation, home to the Johnson Space Center, I have been an avid supporter of NASA. As we return to flight, possibly as early as next Tuesday, this bill authorizes funding necessary to fulfill our vision for the future of the space program. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Perry M. Simmons on a lifetime of work and dedication to the public. Mr. Simmons has spent his life serving the city of Baytown, Harris County, the State of Texas, and his country.

Mr. Simmons served in the Navy during World War II on board the ship that carried General Douglas MacArthur back to the Philippines, the USS LST 709. He would advance through the ranks to become lieutenant and go on to earn four combat medals and a Philippine Liberation Medal. After serving in World War II Mr. Simmons returned to Texas to earn his bachelors degree in Journalism. After short but successful careers in advertising and management, Governor Dolph Briscoe personally appointed Mr. Simmons Deputy Director for the Governor's Committee on Aging.

Mr. Simmons won his first election to Baytown City Council in 1980, and was hired by then-Harris County Judge Jon Lindsay as his

administrative assistant in 1981. He served on the Baytown City Council throughout the 1980s, and was instrumental in securing funds for the West Main Bridge--now named, in his honor, the Perry Simmons Bridge. In 1995, he retired from Judge Lindsay's office, at the age of 75.

Mr. Simmons can look back with pride at his life's accomplishments. I applaud him for his efforts and service to the public and wish him well in future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this statement for the Record.

Eulogy for J.J. Pickle

(By Dr. William H. Cunningham)

Jake Pickle always referred to The University of Texas at

Austin as ``my University,'' and no one ever had a greater

right to that claim. When Jake said that, it was an

expression not of what The University owed to him, but of his

abiding love for it and all that he wanted to do to benefit

it.

And benefit The University he did. Across all the

generations, since The University was only a dream in the

heart of Dr. Ashbel Smith, no one has ever loved The

University of Texas more than Jake Pickle.

No one ever stood by The University with greater loyalty in

its time of need.

No one has ever worked harder to help it realize its vision

of greatness.

No one has ever given it wiser counsel or embraced it with

greater love.

And The University never had a greater friend.

So today we remember and celebrate a man in whose heart The

University held a central place. And we remember and

celebrate also the fact that Jake Pickle was central to the

rise of The University as an internationally prominent

institution.

The story of The University's development and flourishing

since the mid-20th century is a complex one, with many

chapters and versus and many personalities. But no one should

ever underestimate the crucial importance of the fact that

during much of that time The University was represented in

Congress by Jake Pickle.

I had the good fortune to talk with Jake on many occasions

about his experiences at The University, and he often said

that his decision to enroll at U. T. was one of the most

important decisions he ever made.

To a large extent, we can thank the Great Depression for

that decision. Jake's older brother and sisters had gone to

Baylor, and everybody was assuming that Jake would follow

them, but the Depression intervened and changed his plans

dramatically.

By the time Jake graduated from high school in his home

town of Big Spring in 1932, the family could no longer afford

to send him to Baylor, so Jake decided to enroll at The

University.

Jake's father had saved a grand total of $65 to get Jake

started as a freshman in September of 1932. Tuition was $25 a

semester, and Jake's room at the Little Campus Dormitory was

another $25, so that left him with $15 for books and

everything else.

He soon got a job delivering milk to the other residents of

the dormitory and made as much as twenty five cents a day--

enough to buy a full meal.

But even more important than the money, Jake told me that

his milk route enabled him to get to know the other 140

students in the dormitory, and those friendships later became

the foundation of his success in campus politics--which, in

turn, laid the groundwork for his success in politics in the

wider world.

Like Jake, those boys were from relatively poor families,

drawn to the university from all over Texas by the

opportunity it offered for an affordable education, which in

turn provided a lifetime of additional social, economic, and

political opportunities.

With those 140 friends from Little Campus spread out across

the university, Jake found that he had a strong base of

support when he ran for the Student Assembly and the Texas

Union Board.

He later combined that base with the growing circle of

campus friends and supporters that he and fellow student John

Connally attracted when each of them ran for president of the

Student Government. By the way, each of them served as the

other's campaign manager in those elections.

Jake served as president of the student body after he

entered law school in 1937, and Connally was elected the next

year. They both ran as ``independents,'' rather than as

representatives of the powerful fraternity and sorority

cliques, but they also had a lot of support through the Delta

Theta Phi fraternity--a group that Jake said went by the

nickname of the ``Dollar Thirty-Fives.''

Campus politics was a serious contact sport in those days,

and more than one political rival learned that Jake Pickle

and John Connally were formidable politicians.

As Jake told me: ``At first Connally and I went in with the

fraternities and sororities and other groups in what we

called the People's Political Party, but the fraternities

decided that the Little Campus men were becoming too powerful

so they kicked us out. So then John and I joined together and

organized all the independents, all the dorms and boarding

houses, and everything else on the campus. We divided the

campus into precincts and had a chairman for every one. We

found that there were more have-nots than haves.''

Jake called the experience ``the best political training

anybody could have.''

He told me another great story about his campaign for

student body president. There were three candidates--Bob

Eckhardt, who was another independent like Jake, and Ramsey

Moore, who was the candidate put forward by the fraternities

and sororities. Jake and John Connally were worried that the

independent vote would be split, thus giving the election to

the Greek candidate.

First they tried to persuade Bob Eckhardt to drop out, but

when that didn't work Connally came up with the idea of

having a runoff election if no one won a majority. They

researched the matter and found that it was permitted by the

student constitution although, apparently, student body

presidents had always been elected with just a plurality of

the votes. Whether to have a runoff became a major issue

across the campus, and Jake and John stirred up student

opinion and circulated a runoff petition, so the Greeks

finally had to accept the idea or appear to be undemocratic.

Well, the runoff plan backfired, because, to everyone's

surprise, Jake came out on top in the first round of voting!

If they hadn't sold everybody on the runoff, Jake would have

been elected that night.

Jake told me he went to see Dean Shorty Nowotny to ask him

what he should do--have a runoff or not--and Shorty told Jake

it was up to him. Jake wrestled with the idea of ignoring his

own runoff petition, but he finally decided that going ahead

with the runoff was the right thing to do.

Jake went on to win the runoff election and take office as

president!

That campaign was also notable for Jake's use of his now

famous ``Pickle Pins.'' He got the idea from the H.J. Heinz

Co., which had given away the green pickle-shaped pins at a

World's Fair. Jake said he wrote to Heinz and asked to have

any of their old pins, and they sent him five thousand of

them. He and his volunteers covered up the Heinz name and

wrote ``Jake'' across every one of them!

Jake never forgot the way The University brought together

people from all walks of life, from every station in society

and from all economic backgrounds, and gave them all a chance

to achieve and excel.

He never forgot the friends that he made during his student

days and the hardships and triumphs that they shared. And, of

course, he never forgot The University itself.

When Jake first ran for Congress he campaigned on the idea

of strengthening the Balcones Research Center and developing

it into a truly world-class research and development

facility. Building on the work of Lyndon Johnson and others

through the years, Jake helped The University finally gain

title to the Balcones site in 1971, and he contributed in

many ways to advancing the status of research facilities at

the site. Much of this work was accomplished through Jake's

chairmanship of the House Science, Space, and Technology

Committee.

In 1994, The University of Texas System Board of Regents

renamed the Balcones Research Center as the J. J. Pickle

Research Campus in honor of Jake's noble work in support of

this outstanding educational enterprise.

Jake's tireless labors on behalf of The University

frequently encompassed the arcane nuts and bolts of federal

tax policy, and he got things done that nobody else could

have. For example, he helped get University oil revenues

excluded from the windfall profits tax of the 1970s. And

another time, he was instrumental in passing a tax credit

that helped direct private-sector resources into university

research and development--not just at U.T. but at

universities across the nation.

And he was a genius at finding ways to get the federal

budget to come to The University's rescue in a time of

crisis.

I know that Provost Gerry Fonken, Vice Provost Steve Monti,

and Dean of Engineering Herb Woodson will never forget the

day back in 1991 when we met with Jake at the Willard Hotel

in Washington to try to save our microelectronics building

from disaster. Somehow, The University had ``value

engineered'' enough money out of the project so that upon its

completion it was nothing more than a shell of a building.

This $10 million problem was presented to the Board of

Regents by U.T. System Chancellor Hans Mark and Executive

Vice Chancellor Jim Duncan. I was called in to explain how I

was going to solve the problem. I turned to the Regents and

said I have a plan. Fortunately for me, they accepted my

brash confidence and proceeded to the next item of business.

Unfortunately for me, I had no plan.

However, I did know how to call my Congressman, our

Congressman, the Congressman Jake Pickle.

Within two weeks of the Regent's meeting, Gerry, Steve,

Herb and I were nervously waiting in the dining room of the

Willard Hotel to meet with Jake. He and Beryl came charging

into the dining room.

Jake was running his hands through his hair, and he

announced before he even sat down, ``I don't know what the

problem is, but I will solve it!'' Within one hour he laid

out a strategy that involved Jim Wright, Lloyd Bentsen, and

Phil Gramm. With a little luck and lots of hard work, in less

than two years Congress implemented the Pickle plan and The

University was able to successfully ``compete'' for a special

$10 million package to support microelectronics and material

science.

Now that's the kind of Congressman everybody ought to have!

When I think back across the years and recall all those

times that I had the good fortune to meet with Jake, two

over-riding impressions stand out.

First, it was clear that he was a man who combined the

qualities of uncommon vision, boundless energy, and enviable

political skill--and that he was always instantly ready and

will to bring those talents to bear for the benefit of his

University and its succeeding generations of students.

And second, it was always clear that underlying everything

Jake did was his great love of people, the immense joy that

he felt just by being in the company of other people--

listening to them, caring about them, sharing stories and

memories, and, yes, sharing with them the dream for a better

future.

In all these ways, Jake embodied the spirit of American

democracy at its best--a spirit of optimism and hope and good

cheer; a spirit of inclusiveness and opportunity; and a

spirit of public service that embraced honesty, hard work,

practical problem solving, and faithfulness to the

fundamental values and principles of representative

grovernment.

We all loved Jake, and we will always treasure his memory--

a memory that will last for as long as the lights on the U.T.

tower orange and for as long as young Texans continue to come

to Austin seeking education and opportunity at Their

University.

Jake, we love you, and HookEm' Horns!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for this bill, but also to voice my concerns with the Leadership and Administration's handling of other veterans' issues. This bill is recognized by members on both sides of the aisle as necessary to ensure veterans' compensation is adjusted regularly each year to keep up with inflation and other market trends by linking the increase to that of the Social Security COLA, which is based on changes in the Consumer Price Index.

This is a common-sense approach to ensure veterans' compensation keeps pace with the cost of living. It would make sense then that a similar approach would be taken using an appropriate formula to determine funding levels for other programs such as VA healthcare. Instead, House Leadership has refused to move legislation for the last three Congresses to reform the discretionary budget-appropriations process for VA healthcare, and the result is the current funding crisis that the VA is experiencing.

Less than two weeks after first telling Congress it could ride out the fiscal year with inadequate funding, then reversing and asking for $975 million in supplemental funds, the Administration admitted this week that it needs yet another $300 million to take care of veterans' health care needs through September. Had this House followed the Senate's lead and appropriated $1.5 million in emergency VA funding, we would have already covered the second shortfall just recently acknowledged by the White House, and the VA would have the funds to resume providing healthcare to our Nation's veterans.

Instead, while the differing supplemental measures wait to be reconciled, more than 50,000 veterans await health care appointments, clinical positions across the VA are not being filled, VA hospitals are deferring critical equipment purchases, there are shortages of medical supplies in some locations and the number of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking services at VA hospitals continues to rise.

The 2006 budget request was similarly short. What is even more troubling is that funding for veterans' health care beyond 2007 is cut significantly below the amount needed merely to account for inflation.

In a recent letter to House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer, the directors of nine Veterans' Service Organizations pointed out that VA employees in VA facilities are denying and rationing care to tens of thousands of fully eligible veterans, even those with service-connected disabilities, serious chronic illnesses and deteriorating health.

These organizations also stated that veterans are being told they are not eligible for nursing home care when they are absolutely eligible by law. They are told that visits to VA and contract mental health practitioners must be limited to one visit per month irrespective of diagnosis or intensity of need. Veterans are told they cannot be seen for routine physical examinations or preventive visits because they are not ``authorized'' to receive such care. Veterans are told if they fail to appear for scheduled appointments, they will be dropped from VA rolls altogether and must re-apply for enrollment from the back of the line. While forcing untold numbers of veterans to wait unconscionable periods, VA denies the existence of a waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, this is deplorable. If the VA cannot provide healthcare to the veterans currently needing care, how can they take care of the men and women coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan requiring care?

I urge the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the House Leadership to take steps to address this problem so that we are not faced with similar problems in the future. Our veterans have served their country bravely and deserve better than this.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for the Record in support of this legislation and in support of the Halls Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for reporting out the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2005. I appreciate your inclusion of our language for the Halls Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.

Historic flooding along Halls Bayou has been severe and frequent in some neighborhoods. During Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, Halls Bayou was hit very hard, with more than 8,000 homes flooding within the watershed. No project can keep all homes from flooding, but a project can help reduce the risk of flooding for a significant number of families, reducing the need for Federal assistance, property damage, and loss of life.

The purpose of section 5128 of this legislation which pertains to Halls Bayou is to allow the Harris County Flood Control District, HCFCD, to conduct the GRR and any subsequent Federal interest project on Halls Bayou. The Corps is limited in its staff, resources, and time with the many projects in the Galveston District and the Southwest Division. Local project sponsors with the necessary expertise, like Harris County, can provide efficiency by becoming more involved.

Halls Bayou, a major tributary of Greens Bayou, was authorized in WRDA 1990 as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project. The original Halls Bayou authorization assumed the Greens Bayou project in place, which is now finishing a General Reevaluation Review, GRR. Results indicate that the work on Greens Bayou downstream of Halls Bayou will not have Federal work although it will have significant local projects. Therefore, a GRR is now needed for Halls Bayou as well.

While conducting the GRR to find a possible Federal interest, Harris County can begin project implementation in order to reduce future flood damage as soon as possible. Adding Halls Bayou to section 211(f) allows Harris County to be reimbursed if the project is later approved by the Secretary. I thank the Subcommittee and full Committee for their work on this issue.

I support the bill and the balance that it strikes between the need to improve water resources for human purposes and to preserve our water uses for the environment and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both my House colleagues but also my Rayburn Hall colleague, and also we both came to Congress in 1993 together. I rise to offer my strong support for H.R. 68 as an original cosponsor. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have made significant contributions to all aspects of science advancement over the last half century and deserve the commemoration by having a coin minted celebrating this anniversary.

Since its inception in October of 1958, NASA has pushed the boundaries of exploration from Earth to the Moon, to the outer reaches of the solar system and to the edge of the universe through scientific and technological feats in air and space. NASA remains a leading force in scientific research and stimulating public interest in aerospace exploration, as well as science and technology in general.

Since 1997, I have had the privilege of having NASA astronauts visit middle schools in the congressional district I represent. It is good to have them as neighbors, literally in the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), but they actually come to our district to visit. The interaction between these middle school students with the astronauts and the questions they ask about space and NASA demonstrate the benefits of our space program and the impact on getting our students today who are in middle school excited about math and science.

It is really great when an astronaut who has a great story to tell can get the attention of these 6th, 7th and 8th graders. Because, again, that is the future not only of NASA but of our Nation. When looking back over its history, we remember such revolutionary achievements as the Echo Project, which led to advancements towards the satellite systems we take for granted today, the creation of the manned spacecraft center and mission control in my hometown of Houston, which later was renamed the Johnson Space Center, on through Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon and the lift-off of the shuttle program and the construction of the International Space Station.

The achievements of NASA have not come without cost, however, and having a coin minted to celebrate NASA's accomplishments will also honor the sacrifices made by crew members of Apollo I, Challenger and Colombia who gave their lives advancing our space program.

As NASA takes one more significant step in history tomorrow by returning to flight after more than 2 years, we have the opportunity today to express our support by authorizing the production of a coin emblematic of the 50 years of exemplary and unparalleled achievements of NASA and the JPL. Our prayers and support are with our astronauts tomorrow, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time opposing this rule.

I would like to express my disappointment that the Committee on Rules refused to allow a vote on an amendment that has bipartisan support, an amendment that would require to list contract workers on their injury site log.

This was not a major expense or an inconvenience for employers, yet the Committee on Rules defeated it on a party-line vote.

The bills that are up today are not major legislation. They may correct individual problems, and each of them need to be debated, and they should be. But not to allow other needed OSHA reforms is a travesty of this House because of the situation I am getting ready to talk about. Our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, even though we have bipartisan support on the original legislation that was introduced in March of this year.

Mr. Speaker, 15 people lost their lives during an explosion and fire at a refinery in Texas City. This is a picture of the site, and I include for the Record a copy of the Baytown Sun article on the

deadly accident. This picture shows the site in Texas City.

The bills that are allowed under this rule will do nothing to help the 15 people killed in this accident. Nothing. That is what the travesty is on this floor today.

A series of news articles quickly discovered that it is extremely difficult to assess the safety of such facilities due to the way employers are required to keep their site logs of injuries on the work site. While all deaths and injuries are reported to OSHA, only those involving direct employees of the site-controlling company are required to be maintained on the site incident log. This means that the incidents involving contract workers or part-time workers do not show up on the injury log employers are required to keep by law. Unfortunately, because current law does not require them to do so, the site log will look just the same as it did the day before March 23. It will show no lives were lost.

Those 15 workers who died on this site were contract workers, and they should be reported. Residents and communities surrounding these facilities have a right to know if they live near a place that could endanger them if something were to go wrong. If we had full disclosure of these incidents, the free market system may be able to work. Workers are less willing to work in hazardous environments, so facilities would have incentives to improve safety. Right now, it is nearly impossible to determine exactly how many accidents have occurred at a particular site without cross-referencing contracts between employers and contractors.

OSHA has known these reporting requirements were a problem for 14 years, and yet here we are today dealing with three pieces of legislation that deal with nothing to do with contract workers.

In 1989, one of the most serious plant explosions in our country occurred at a plant in Pasadena, Texas, and I am honored to represent that area. This accident killed 23 workers and injured 232 others. As a result, OSHA called for a study regarding the use of contract labor in the petrochemical industry. This study was conducted while the first George Bush was President, and this study found there was a lack of adequate injury and incident data. It states that current data reporting procedures do not capture the full range of injury or illnesses experienced in the industry because the injury statistics do not include the experience of contract workers.

This amendment does not require an industry to do anything more than record injuries and accidents on their site log regardless of whether they are their employee or someone working on their site. I am not here to bash employers or OSHA. The bottom line is that neighbors and employees have the right to know. These bills that we are considering today may very well weaken job safety, but I do not think they are that major. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems and prevent deaths and injuries like what happened on March 23, 2005, in Texas City, Texas. That is why these three bills are woefully inadequate to deal with the problems that we have with on-site job injuries right now.

[From the Baytown Sun, June 29, 2005]

Alarms, Instrumentation Failed in BP Refinery Blast

(By Pam Easton)

Nassau Bay.--Key pieces of instrumentation and alarms at

BP's Texas City refinery weren't working properly in March

when explosions rocked the plant, killing 15 and injuring

more than 170, federal investigators said Tuesday.

Don Holmstrom, lead investigator with U.S. Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board, said an alarm within the

isomerization unit--where the explosion occurred--didn't work

properly until after the explosions had begun.

Holmstrom also said a sensor in a section of the raffinate

splitter, which separates chemicals for gasoline production,

indicated the liquid level in the tower was decreasing when

it was instead flooding. Another alarm that should have

sounded when the liquid exceeded 10 feet high didn't

activate, ``even as the liquid flooded more than 12 times

that height,'' Holmstrom said.

Among the 15 people killed in the March 23 explosion, seven

were from Baytown or surrounding communities.

They were: Jimmy Hunnings, 58, of Baytown; Morris Raymond

``Monk'' King, 57 of Baytown; Susan Duhan Taylor, 33, of

Baytown; Ralph Herrera Jr. 27, of Baytown; Larry Linsenbardt,

58 of Mont Belvieu; Ryan Rodriguez, 28, of Dayton; and Lorena

``Lori'' Cruz, 32 of La Porte.

BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said the federal safety

board's findings are similar to the company's own

investigation completed in May.

The company blamed staff errors for the March 23 explosion

and fire. Among the procedural lapses company executives

cited were a lack of supervision and a six-minute window in

which unit supervisors could have sounded an alarm to

evacuate the area, but didn't.

``If personnel responsible for the safe startup of the isom

unit had followed procedures, the fire and explosion would

not have occurred,'' Chappell said Tuesday.

An alarm notified operators of a liquid level that was too

high in the raffinate splitter at 3:05 a.m. on March 23,

company records show. An operator silenced the alarm, but an

illuminated warning remained on screens and the alarm

remained in effect until 1:20 p.m., the time of the blast,

Holmstrom said.

Meanwhile, liquid-level indicators drifted down from 100

percent to 79 percent beginning at 7:30 a.m., and

``erroneously indicated to operators that the liquid level in

the tower was below 10 feet and was falling back toward a

normal value.''

However, the 164-foot tower was instead flooded with liquid

that reached 120 feet or more, Holmstrom said. A normal level

is below 10 feet.

When the excess liquid and vapor was discharged, it

overwhelmed one of the unit's systems, causing the vapor and

liquid to be released and ignited by a still-unknown source.

Holmstrom said federal investigators will spend the next

four to six weeks testing at least 30 instruments and other

equipment in the isomerization unit, which boosts the octane

level in gasoline. Federal investigators have also asked BP

for equipment maintenance records. Chappell said BP was

cooperating.

Holmstrom said it is ``unprecedented'' for his

investigators to spend so much time looking into equipment,

instrumentation and their possible failures.

``Our objective is to understand why this tragedy occurred,

and, we hope, to prevent similar occurrences in the future,''

he said.

The board will hold a public meeting to discuss complete

findings of the federal probe this fall, Holmstrom added.

Chappell said BP and federal investigators have the same

goal.

``We want to ascertain exactly what occurred and take

action to prevent something like this from ever happening

again,'' he said.

The blast was the plant's third accident in a year,

following a March 2004 explosion that caused an evacuation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to these measures. This legislation moves in the wrong direction for worker safety.

We are spending valuable time changing small portions of OSHA to overturn court decisions and tweak the law to benefit industry.

I'm not sure we should be spending time addressing all these small issues when we know that reporting requirements are a problem and we could be doing something about it.

It doesn't matter in which facility these accidents occurred. The fact is people should know if an accident has occurred and the company managing the site should report it whether contract workers were involved or not.

If someone is seriously injured at my home, regardless if I'm at fault, there will be a report by the paramedics or the police and it will list my residence.

In March, fifteen people were killed in a refinery accident in Texas City. None of them will be on the injury site log because the law doesn't require them to list contract workers.

Since 1991 we've known reporting requirements should be changed to include contract workers. The report recommending this was sanctioned by OSHA under the first George Bush's administration.

There is no reason the Republican leadership couldn't allow at least some discussion on the reporting issue today. People have the right to know if they are applying for a job at a facility that has a poor safety record.

We should be talking about real issues instead of making things just a little better for industry. We've known about this problem for 14 years. That's too long to avoid making a simple change to the law to require site-based reporting of injuries.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who served many years in the State Senate and in the Supreme Court of Texas and now in Congress.

Since it is replacing Jake Pickle, although nobody can replace Jake Pickle, I served only one term with Jake, but knowing him and when I served in the legislature with him for 20 years in Austin before I was elected to Congress, Jake for my whole career was the definition of Texas gentleman. He loved Texas and loved Austin and the hill country.

I guess my first experience knowing Jake was in 1974. I just completed my first term as a young 25-year-old member of State legislature. And another member that served one term, Larry Bails, Larry decided that Jake might be vulnerable in 1974. So Larry Bails, who had a good one term in the legislature and was the owner at that time of the landmark in Austin, the Schultz Beer Hall, where a lot of legislature folks decided to go after the session, Larry decided to run against Jake and ran a fairly aggressive campaign. But Larry was one of the many who made that wrong decision.

Larry was a good member of the State legislature but decided he would move up too quick. I watched Jake campaign, because we were at the Constitutional Convention during that primary of that year. I was in Austin at that time and still going home on weekends like we do now, and watched that campaign unfold and how Jake literally, he being a long-term member, at that time a little over 10 years, literally took this young fellow apart so to speak.

Jake was such a great person. We have so many good stories. The reason I brought his book over is that, in 1997, Jake gave me this book and wrote an inscription that I was so proud to come from someone of Jake Pickle's stature: To my distinguished colleague Gene Green, experienced, effective and trusted, and I know this Gene Green was for the people. And having that statement from Jake Pickle was more than anyone could ever expect.

I would just suggest that if someone wants to have some great stories of how government works and how, in our process, if you do not have a sense of humor, you will surely go crazy; Jake did this in his book and I assume it is still in print, the University of Texas print. For my colleagues, I know the Library of Congress has them. My colleagues will love to read it. You will

stay up all night because I did that. When I first got the book, I stayed up and read all the great stories about LBJ when Jake was a staff member for President Johnson.

I served with a lot of great people in my time and great Texans, and Jake was one of them. I compare Jake to Lieutenant Governor Bob Bullock in one way; they both loved Texas and loved the job they did.

I have to admit, Bullock would wake up in the morning and give everybody a good cussing and, thank goodness, forget about it in the afternoon. You did not have to worry about that with Jake Pickle because he was a gentleman. But he also had a sense of humor I do not think any of us can express too much.

In the introduction to his book, I believe his daughter wrote the introduction, and briefly some of Jake's rules are: In a parade, do not get behind the horses but do ride in a convertible with your name on the sides. Always be available to constituents. Do not assume they will not find out about it because they will.

These are some good tests for all elected officials whether you are in Congress or not.

If it does not pass the smell test, do not do it. A politician who expects financial privacy is in the wrong line of work. Do not arrive at events too early because they do not know what to do with you. Listen for the bell.

Those of us in Congress understand that. We have to listen for the bell so we can go vote.

Answer every constituent's letter within 3 days of its receipt. We have that goal in our office still, 3 business days anyway.

If you do not know where the money came from, give it back. Holding a drink gets in the way of shaking hands.

That is a good saying for elected officials also.

In your home district, you cannot say no. Jake understood that.

In a restaurant, face the door so people can see and talk to you. Always carry a pen and paper. Introduce yourself first. At barbecues, which is something we do a lot of in Texas, stand at the head of the food line. Everybody has to pass by and you get to shake their hand. Never take it all for granted.

Those are some of Jake's sayings that I think any elected official can live by. Jake will be missed.

I will close by telling a personal experience. When my daughter went to the University of Texas, she had a project one time, and this was after Jake had left Congress. And she went down to his office, and Jake literally opened up for an hour or more helping her do her project at the University of Texas. Of course, this is a young lady who grew up in politics and was actually born while I was in the legislature.

After she met Jake Pickle, and she did not call me to say she had to go do it; she did call me and say, Dad, I just met one of the greatest folks I ever talked to. Jake Pickle, Congressman Pickle was so good to talk to me. He was so down to Earth, so easy to understand.

I think that is Jake's legacy. I guess the last thing I would say is his legacy goes on because, at the University of Texas, the J.J. Pickle Fellowship Program supports internships within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal government. It is fitting that, after passing, J.J. Pickle will be helping the future public servants just like he has helped so many of us in the past.

Jake will be missed. I know his family will miss him, but we will also miss the feeling of his love for Texas, his love for Austin, the communities of central Texas, but also our country.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for allowing for this special order this evening.

Former Congressman J.J. Pickle was a standout in the great tradition of Texas legislators. He was deeply loved and respected throughout Central Texas and the entire state.

My sincere condolences go out to his family and friends throughout Texas and the Nation for their loss of this great man.

From Big Spring, Texas J.J. Pickle went on to win Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson's 10th District Congressional seat and became a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

His accomplishments here were numerous. One example when he chaired the Social Security subcommittee was the bipartisan, consensus changes to save Social Security back in 1983.

I served with him in this House from 1993 to 1995, and he was an inspiration to all of us.

He was a dedicated public servant, whose legacy shows he did what was best for his constituents, not politics. As proof of his dedication to public service, the J.J. Pickle Fellowship program at the University of Texas supports internships within the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the Federal government.

It is fitting that even after his passing, J.J. Pickle will be helping future public servants, just like he helped so many in the past.

His passing should give us all an opportunity to reflect on his ideals of constituent service and hard, honest work.

Politics sometimes distracts us from why we got into this public service in the first place--which is the honest reward you feel when you help the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in deep regret at the passing of a great Texas leader, J.J. Pickle. May God bless him and his family during this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 714, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

The FCC's recent proposal to require written permission to send commercial fax messages created a great deal of controversy, and I support this small amendment to the Junk Fax law that will make the larger law work better.

I am a strong supporter of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its ban on unsolicited commercial faxes, which place an undue financial burden on small business and individual recipients.

It's one thing to have to receive a unsolicited telemarketer's call-- it's even worse to have to pay for it by having to replace the paper from your fax machine.

However, I agree that the explicit, written notification requirement contemplated by the FCC in its proposed rulemaking is problematic for some situations like trade associations, realtors, and others who already have existing business relationships.

As a result, I am pleased to join the bipartisan leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in supporting S. 714, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

This Act corrects the FCC's rule and allows for businesses to communicate with other businesses with whom they have an established business relationship, as long as they allow business to ``opt-out'' of future faxes.

This new law will not weaken protections for residential consumers or protection for businesses from unsolicited ads for printer toner, vacation deals, and other sales pitches that cost consumers money.

This new law will prevent businesses and realtors from having to fill out paperwork to communicate with each other about an existing business relationship.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill and urge its adoption by the full House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for this bill, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

A strong foreign operations budget enables the U.S. to confront national security threats such as international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as strengthen relations with other countries, address challenges like the genocide in Darfur, help safeguard human rights, and address problems such as hunger and AIDS.

I am especially pleased with the strong and continued support in this bill for our close ally, Israel. This bill provides $2.5 billion in assistance for Israel, including $2.3 billion for military grants, and $240 million in economic assistance.

As Israel takes bold steps to promote the peace process by disengaging from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, relinquishing security control of West Bank towns, and releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, this funding will be essential to Israel's security and economic well-being.

This bill also includes an important provision expressing the sense of Congress that Arab League countries should immediately end the boycott against Israel and its trading partners, and calls on President Bush to consider a country's participation in the boycott when determining whether to sell U.S. weapons to the country.

The bill also withholds U.S. funds for the International Red Cross headquarters building in Geneva until the organization recognizes the Magen David Adom Society as the national humanitarian society of Israel. Finally, the measure includes $40 million for the resettlement of refugees from the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Ethiopia to Israel, provided through the Migration and Refugee Assistance Account.

To uphold our commitment to the only true democracy in the Middle East and America's closest ally in the war on terror, Congress must ensure Israel has the means necessary to defend herself.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides these funds and reaffirms our dedication to Israel's well being, and for that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address something of great concern to the tens of thousands of students of all ages in my district: the need for more responsible funding for education.

The President's budget would have eliminated over 50 programs that benefit students. Unfortunately, the President called for the elimination of programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP and the Perkins program.

I was shocked to find these programs on the President's chopping block because they benefit the students who come from lower income families and are trying to be the first person in their family to go to college, and in some cases, to graduate from High School.

I commend Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for agreing to keep these programs so that many more students can achieve their goals of getting a good education.

While I'm glad to see TRIO and Perkins programs in this bill, it still does not do enough for students in districts like mine. Enrollment rates are increasing in our area and throughout the country. Yet we increase funding for education to a level that can not begin to meet that need. Every Congress, we shrink the amount of funding increases to education. This time, we've brought it to a new low by raising our education funding by 3.6 percent.

Under this bill, Title I funding is increased by $1 billion. The thousands of students who benefit from Title I funds will greatly appreciate this increase. However, this is still $7 billion short of what is authorized for Title I under No Child Left Behind.

I support the efforts the committee has made to restore the TRIO and Perkins programs and increase Title I funds. We should

always do our best to fully fund these initiatives. This bill falls short of what we should be investing in education.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding and thank him for his work on the Committee on Appropriations to restore the HCAP funding.

The subcommittee has worked wonders with the allocation you have been given, and I know you are supportive of the HCAP program and have seen the tremendous outcomes achieved in communities with HCAP funding.

In Houston, we have utilized CAP funding to put together the necessary collaboratives to help solve our health care access problems. Unfortunately, this bill completely eliminates the CAP program at a time when the level of uninsured individuals in this country has reached 45 million and growing.

We know all too well that now is not the time to limit access to primary and preventive health care services in our community. Without this health care access, our uninsured constituents tend to seek health care from our hospital emergency rooms where costs are skyrocketing and beds are scarce.

In Harris County, 57 percent of diagnoses in our safety net hospital ERs could be treated in a primary care clinic. With HCAP funds, communities can shepherd folks to the appropriate health care home and put together the partnerships needed to develop additional community health centers for all of our uninsured.

This is truly a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to work with us on this issue, and hopefully we can restore the funding on this worthy program in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and classmate for yielding me this time.

I rise in support and as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 10, an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag.

Our flag represents our country as a symbol of our Nation and our veterans bravery throughout history. Our servicemen and women are courageously fighting the war on terrorism and putting their lives on the line every day to protect our Nation and the freedoms that we enjoy.

While I am a strong supporter of the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression, hallowed symbols like the flag deserve to be respected and protected. Those who desecrate our flag undermine that powerful symbol that really unites millions of Americans, both alive and those who have died trying to defend our Nation.

Flag-burning shows an ultimate contempt, and I think that is really what it is for, to show contempt and disrespect for our men and women fighting overseas now.

We have the right to protest and object to the policies of this administration or any other. The most effective protest is not to burn the flag, but political action. Go vote and organize people who agree with you to change the policies. Protest as much as we want to change those policies, but you cannot burn the flag. That is just the bottom line.

This amendment would restore historic protection for our national symbol, and that is why I am proud to support this amendment.