Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the hard work of my colleagues, Chairman Don Young, Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, Chairman Tom Petri, and Ranking Member Pete DeFazio.

This legislation will help our nation keep up with its ever growing transportation needs, but I want to add that it does fall short.

It falls short because we have not indexed the gas tax or added the small increases necessary to allow the country to successfully grow.

The Department of Transportation estimated that it will take at least $350 billion to keep up with our transportation needs, but the Administration has drawn a line in the sand at $289 billion.

I would ask the President to look back at Texas, where the Republican leadership is now seriously considering indexing the Texas state gas tax, as I proposed many years ago in the state legislature.

The gas tax is the easiest tax to defend for a politician, because the benefit to drivers is obvious, and if you don't use your car or truck on the roads, you don't have to pay it.

Now we forced into a situation where every new highway in America will be tolled, something my middle and low-income commuters and professional truck drivers vigorously oppose.

So I support this legislation, but I also support the re-opener provision that allows us to consider a gas tax index proposal in the future.

I also support further efforts in conference to increase the scope of the minimum guarantee and increase the rate of return on that minimum guarantee. Texas deserves at least 95 percent of the gas tax revenue that we pay into the system.

I support the efforts of the Majority Leader to improve our rate of return, but I also encourage him to study what his colleagues, including the Speaker of the Texas House, are considering for the state gas tax.

This legislation also included two projects of critical importance to my area in Houston, the reconstruction of Clinton Dr. near the Port of Houston and the construction of US90 from the Beltway into Loop 610.

Clinton Dr. is currently in a state of disrepair causing safety concerns and the constant maintenance work is a drain on local resources.

US90 will provide much needed mobility for Northeast Harris County, by completing a project that has been on the books for many years. Development along this corridor will be encouraged and greatly improve the area.

I want to thank Congressman Ted Poe for working with us on the US90 project, which will also benefit his constituents by providing another route into central Houston and by relieving traffic on I-10 east and US 59 North.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to this Job Training Improvement Act because it does nothing to improve job training in our country.

Congress has an opportunity to take the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act and address the needs of millions of unemployed Americans. Instead, we are presented with a proposal that reduces the impact of job training programs by cutting funding to traditional job training providers such as the veteran's employment programs and Perkins Vocational Education Programs.

This bill also consolidates the adult, dislocated worker and employment service programs and their funding while repealing the Wagner Peyser Act. Wager Peyser established the Federal performance and accountability standards that ensure our job training programs are quality programs that place able workers in appropriate positions in the workforce.

Furthermore, this bill would allow federally funded job training organizations to question a candidate about their religious beliefs. I've been a Christian all my life. However, I do not feel it is the place of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds to question a job candidate about their religious beliefs.

At this time, Congress needs to place more resources into workforce training, not reduce job training programs that are successful. The Houston area continues to have an unemployment rate higher than the national average, as does the State of Texas.

This bill will slow down the ability of those who need workforce training from getting it, and right now this economy needs all the help it can get. H.R. 27 is bad public policy and will further slow our efforts to strengthen our economy.

Mr. Speaker, today, March 2 marks Texas Independence Day, and this morning at the Texas State Cemetery in Austin, Texas, Texans paid tribute with a musket volley salute in full costume to the Texas veterans who are buried there.

Texas cities and towns across the State are holding many important Memorial events in honor of the fact that 169 years ago today, the Texas Declaration of Independence was ratified by the Constitutional Convention of 1836 at Washington-on-the-Brazos.

Less than 100 years after American patriots declared independence from the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texas declared its independence from Mexico. After July 4, 1776, democratic government became a birthright for the people of the new

world, but one that we would have to fight for.

Like the American patriots driven to revolution by heavy-handed British intervention, Texas declared its independence after many years of living peacefully as part of the Mexican federal republic because Mexico became dominated by military dictatorships.

The seeds of Texas independence were sown in 1824, when a military dictatorship abolished the Mexican constitution.

In the words of the Texas declaration of independence, the Texas people's government have been forcibly changed without their consent from a restricted federative republic composed of sovereign states to a consolidated central military despotism.

The Texas Declaration of Independence also based the justification for revolution on the grounds that the government of Mexico had ceased to protect the lives and liberty and property of the people.

The military dictatorships that had unfortunately captured the Mexican government also did not provide for trial by jury, freedom of religion or public education.

Failure to provide these essential services violates the sacred contract between government and the people.

It is important to remember that the struggle for Texas independence was a political struggle, not an ethnic conflict. In fact, many Texas Hispanics consider themselves Tejanos and not Mexicanos.

Tejanos lived in Texas long before Mexico existed and they moved there for the same reasons Anglos later moved there, freedom to run their own affairs and a wild but productive landscape.

So we are inspired by so many Tejanos that joined the fight for independence when the Mexican government became an exploitive military regime, including Captain Juan Sequin, Lorenzo de Zavala, a future republic of Texas vice president.

When Texans and Tejanos protested the undemocratic changes to Mexico's government, they were thrown in jail and the Mexican Army marched to war on Texas to enforce the decrees of the military dictatorship at the point of a bayonet.

While future President Sam Houston and other delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, Santa Anna's army was besieging the Texans and Tejanos at the Alamo in San Antonio.

The Alamo fell on the morning of March 6, 1836 when Lt. Colonel William Barrett Travis, Tennesseean congressman David Crockett and approximately 200 other Texan and Tejano defenders were killed in action a heroic sacrifice for Texan freedom. On March 27, this same Army massacred over 300 unarmed Texans at Goliad.

Fortunately, Texans and Tejanos achieved their independence several weeks later on April 21, 1836 when approximately 900 Texans and Tejanos of the Texas Army overpowered a much larger Mexican army in the surprise attack at the Battle of San Jacinto.

Texas Independence Day is important to all Americans because it is the event that show the brotherhood of freedom can be stronger than the brotherhood of ethnicity or nationality, as Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad and the Alamo and along the banks of the San Jacinto River and the government of the republic of Texas.

People sometimes wonder what makes Texas and Texans so different and I believe part of that answer is the passion for freedom that gave us the first Texas Independence Day is still alive today. Something about being raised in Texas or even living there for an extended period of time makes Texans less willing to put up with the infringement on our rights, more willing to fight for them. I believe part of that passion comes from knowing Texas history.

Today we give thanks to the many Texans of all backgrounds that sacrificed for the Texas freedom we enjoy. God bless Texas and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the problematic FDA approval process. In recent weeks, we have learned that the Federal Drug Administration has established an independent board to review post-market drug safety issues. We have also learned that the FDA committee issued a recommendation to return Vioxx to the market and keep Bextra and Celebrex on the market.

On the surface, it would seem the FDA has taken measures to address drug safety issues. However, we know all too well the devil is always in the details, and by looking at these details, it is clear that it is just business as usual at the FDA.

Take the committee that issued the recent recommendations on the COX- 2 inhibitors. Ten of the 32 drug advisers had ties to the pharmaceutical industry and, in fact, had received consulting fees in the past from the drug manufacturers. I wonder how they voted? Nine to one to keep the drugs on the market.

Without the votes of these industry consultants, the committee would have recommended withdrawal of Bextra from the market and keep Vioxx off the market. We will never know if their votes are the result of an actual conflict of interest.

Yet to stay above the ethical fray, there should not even be an appearance of conflict of interest at the FDA. Their job is too important. With nearly a third of the panel receiving consulting fees from the industry, the appearance of conflict of interest is undeniable.

Unfortunately, the newly-established Drug Safety Oversight Board will suffer from similar problems. Despite the claims that the board will be independent, all but two members of the board will be FDA employees. What is more, the board will include FDA employees from the Office of New Drugs, the entity that approved the drugs in the first place. What incentive would board members truly have to conclude the decisions made by the FDA were mistakes in judgment and should be reversed? Even less likely is the chance that the board members from the Office of New Drugs would vote to reverse their own decisions or those of their closest colleagues when it comes to drug safety.

Mr. Speaker, the makeup of this board is more incestuous than independent, and, unfortunately, this problem pervades the entire FDA approval process, not just approval of pharmaceuticals. We have experienced it in our own efforts to keep silicone breast implants off the market. When the implant manufacturers came before the FDA, 40 percent of the advisory panel was made up of plastic surgeons.

Needless to say, each of the plastic surgeons voted to approve silicone breast implants. There is a conflict of interest if I ever saw one, since plastic surgeons are virtually guaranteed more business if the FDA approves again the use of silicone breast implants.

Despite the panel's recommendation to approve the device, the FDA, thank goodness, recognized the need for additional clinical trials, and rejected that

application. Now, with another advisory panel in the works, we face another uphill battle to ensure that decisions are based on science alone, rather than tainted by conflicts of interest.

Like device approval, the FDA approval process for pharmaceuticals no longer reflects public's use of these products. Whereas the FDA approval process is based on clinical trials with small samples and short durations, the drug industry is now geared to treating chronic conditions, such as high cholesterol and arthritis, that affect millions of Americans for decades at a time.

In a rush to get these drugs to market, the FDA relies on preliminary studies with little insight into long-term risk, telling manufacturers they will get conditional approval as long as they conduct post-market studies. The problem is, the FDA has no enforcement authority to mandate these studies. With the drugs on the market and the profits rolling in, the manufacturers have nothing to gain from conducting the post-market studies.

The statistics paint a crystal clear picture. As of September 2003, drug manufacturers agreed to perform 1,338 post-market studies. The FDA has reported, however, that two-thirds of them have not even begun that agreement from September of 2003. All the while, manufacturers can either market these products to physicians or directly to the public, who equate the FDA stamp of approval with safety.

Mr. Speaker, we need to give the FDA the tools to hold drug manufacturers to their agreement to do the post-market studies. If they are fined for non-compliance or barred from direct advertising until the studies are completed, maybe the manufacturers would have an incentive to get moving on these studies.

The FDA's regulatory authority needs some teeth. Creating this Drug Safety Oversight Board takes us in the opposite direction by simply rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. If this is how the FDA intends to get back to business, then business as usual is simply not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2005 I attended the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center's National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Program in Houston, Texas.

The National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans takes place each year during the week of February 14 to honor the more than 98,000 veterans of the U.S. Armed Services who are cared for every day in Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, outpatient clinics, and nursing homes.

At the Program, Harry E. Dearen of Houston read the following poem he wrote in October 1996 to honor our veterans:

And Then I Cry

[By H. Dearen]

Of the price of the days of glory. And then I cry.

For the freedom and the story. And then I cry.

As I think of the wars that have past. And then I cry.

For our countries greatness, it will last. And then I cry.

For old glory and to make things right. And then I cry.

In the lands out over the sea. And then I cry.

That for others they might be free. And then I cry.

For every one that heeded the call. And then I cry.

For those that have died for the good of all. And then I cry.

As we honor our veterans this week during the National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans, I wanted to share this poem with my colleagues.

This poem pays tribute to our veterans, reminds us all of the sacrifices they made, and is a lasting reminder of what they sacrificed for.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend several votes late last week due to personal business, and I ask unanimous consent to include this personal explanation in the record.

On February 10, 2005, I was unable to be present for Rollcall votes #28-#31.

On Rollcall vote #28 on agreeing to the Nadler of New York amendment to H.R. 418, I would have voted ``nay.''

On Rollcall vote #29 on agreeing to the Farr of California amendment to H.R. 418, I would have voted ``yea.''

On Rollcall vote #30 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 418 with Instructions, I would have voted ``yea.''

On Rollcall vote #31 on final passage of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my classmate and colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this legislation.

It is interesting that we are discussing the driver's license the day after the President's budget was released that did not fund the border patrol officers we authorized 2 months ago. Instead of 2,000, the President only wants to authorize 200 new border officers. We are attacking the driver's license issue, which seems strange, when we should be attacking the person who may be getting it.

I always hear that ``Guns don't kill people, people do.'' Well, that driver's license does not kill anybody. It is the person who does it. Let us go after that person. And that is what those 2,000 border patrol officers for the next 2 years are supposed to do.

You know, building a fence is a good idea. But, again, I think it ought to be built like other construction projects, subject to competitive bidding and environmental concerns. There is bound to be a way we can build a fence that is environmentally safe along the desert in Southern California.

I have a district in Texas, and I know that we need secure identification cards that are used like driver's licenses. But we have one of the largest minority immigrant populations in the

country, and more people immigrate to the United States through Texas every day. Having secure ID cards not only helps protect our homeland, but also helps our law enforcement keep our roads safer and enables them to do a better job. That is why we addressed this issue 2 months ago and required, under the Intelligence Reform Act, the Department of Homeland Security to establish standards, guidelines for ID cards.

The REAL ID Act goes far beyond that. That is what I am concerned about. This legislation even goes beyond this by preventing any form of judicial review to such waivers.

Our government was founded on checks and balances. And as much as a Member of Congress would like to eliminate the Supreme Court or the court system, you can not do it. The Constitution makes sure that we are equal branches of government.

And, again, I support barriers. I support tightening security. I support additional border patrol, but attacking driver's licenses is the wrong effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to help dispel the ridiculous myth that Social Security is in a state of crisis.

If you listened to the President at the State of the Union or out on the stump, you have heard the President use words like ``broke,'' ``bust'' or ``bankrupt.'' Mr. Speaker, Social Security is neither broke nor bankrupt. The program is certainly not in crisis. A crisis is an imminent problem. Yet, while the President cries ``crisis,'' Social Security continues to bring in more than it pays out in benefits.

According to the Social Security trustees, the program will continue to do so for the next 13 years, until 2018, when the trust fund will be tapped to help pay for benefits. Even then the cries of ``crisis'' would be melodramatic because the money accumulated in the trust fund would be able to provide full benefits for the next quarter of a century.

As a recent Washington Post article put it, calling 2018 a crisis point is ``like saying that Bill Gates will be strapped if he works only part-time.'' Just as Bill Gates has his personal trust fund to draw down, the Social Security trust fund will have more than $3.7 trillion in it in 2018. If our government is going to pay back the debts we owe to someone in a foreign country that invests in Treasury notes, why

should we not be required to pay back the Social Security trust fund, whether it is 2018, 2025 or tomorrow?

The trustees acknowledge that the trust fund and incoming payroll taxes will be enough to cover full benefits until 2042, so there will be no reduction of benefits if Congress did nothing this year and until 2042. According to our own Congressional Budget Office, it would last until 2052. Frankly, the CBO, the budget office, has been much more accurate than the Social Security Trustees' report.

Even if the Social Security trust fund is spent, the program still will not be in crisis. After 2052, according to CBO, the Trustees project that the program will be able to pay out at least 70 percent of the benefits.

Again, that is 47 years from now. Make no mistake, I will not support a cut in benefits, and so a fix is certainly in order, but we need a solution that will mend Social Security without ending the program as we know it. Privatization is no solution.

While we know very little about the details of the President's plan, this much is for sure. On its own, privatization does nothing to close Social Security's funding gap. Rather, it increases that gap by $1.4 trillion in the first 10 years of private accounts and by another $3.5 trillion in the next decade. Not only is Social Security further burdened by private accounts but our seniors would also be worse off.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security faces a challenge, not a crisis. Small changes based on the right priorities could keep the program floating comfortably in a sea of black ink for generations to come.

A repeal of the President's tax cuts on 1 percent of the wealthiest will bring in enough revenue to take care of 80 percent of Social Security's shortfall for the next 75 years. And I will repeat: if we repeal 1 percent of the tax cuts for the highest percentage of the wealthiest in our country, it would take care of 80 percent of Social Security's shortfall over the next 75 years. Yet somehow I doubt whether the administration will ever prioritize a safety net program benefiting all Americans over a tax cut that benefits the wealthy few.

As we consider the various Social Security proposals during this debate, we must remember that Social Security was created as a safety net to provide a minimum standard of living for America's retirees. Nobody is supposed to get rich off Social Security, and they do not. Frankly, with private accounts, I do not think they will get rich either.

What they will do, however, is take the security out of Social Security and jeopardize the program's mission and effectiveness.

For the sake of all the future Social Security beneficiaries, I urge the President to separate the rhetoric from the reality and quit fabricating a crisis in a vain attempt to privatize the most popular, most successful domestic program in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I received Unanimous Consent for an excused absence for February 1, 2005 and the balance of the week on account of family medical reasons, I witnessed the birth of my first grandchild Lauren Elissa Hewlett and I ask Unanimous Consent to include this personal explanation in the Record.

On February 1, 2005, I was unable to be present for Rollcall votes #14 and #15, and on February 2, 2005, I was unable to be present for Rollcall votes #16, #17, #18, and #19.

On Rollcall vote #14, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 23 ``Honoring the contributions of Catholic schools,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

On Rollcall vote #15, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 120, ``To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 30777 Rancho California Road at Temecula, California, as the Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

On Rollcall vote #16, agreeing to the Resolution H. Con. Res. 36, ``Expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

On Rollcall vote #17, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 56, ``Commending the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair presidential election on January 9, 2005, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

On Rollcall vote #18, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 57, ``Expressing the strong concern of the House of Representatives that the European Union may end its embargo against the Peoples Republic of China,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

On Rollcall vote #19, agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 60, ``Relating to the free election in Iraq held on January 30, 2005,'' I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support of House Resolution 56.

January 9, 2005 marked a historic day for the Palestinian people. This resolution commends the Palestinian people for holding free and open elections and congratulates Mahmoud Abbas for being elected President of the Palestinian Authority. This resolution also commends Israel for its role in facilitating the election proceedings.

These elections mark a historic accomplishment for the people of Palestine and a great opportunity for the Israel-Palestine peace process to move forward.

The only way this can happen is for Mr. Abbas to act immediately to end terrorism by stopping the flow of money, equipment, and recruits to Palestinian militant groups.

Mr. Abbas has taken steps since his election to stop these groups, but these efforts must be continued and expanded to end the terrorism that has killed and injured thousands of Israelis and Palestinian people.

Mr. Abbas's election provides an excellent opportunity for the Palestinian Authority to reign in these terrorist groups and for the Palestinian people to move beyond this violence and work with Israel to create a lasting peace.

Mr. Speaker, I have traveled to Israel several times and know that the Israeli Government and the Israeli people are ready and willing to work with the Palestinians but have not had a reliable partner to negotiate with in the past.

Mr. Abbas has the opportunity to put the Palestinian Authority's past failures behind him and demonstrate to Israel and the United States that he is dedicated to the peace process by stopping terrorism and fulfilling Palestinian commitments under the roadmap.

Again, I strongly support this resolution and would like to congratulate Mr. Abbas on his January 9th election, and I am hopeful he will take this timely opportunity to work with Israel toward a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. January 27, 2005, marks the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and serves as a reminder to each of us where racism, bigotry, and religious intolerance can lead.

Poles, Soviets, and prisoners of other nationalities were imprisoned and died in this camp; but it was the mass murder of millions of European Jews by Hitler that made Auschwitz the symbol of inhumanity and brutality during the Holocaust.

From 1940 to 1945, the Nazis deported over 1 million Jews, 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Roma, 15,000 Soviet POWs, and over 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities to Auschwitz. Nearly 1.5 million prisoners perished in gas chambers or died of starvation and disease. Overall, 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust.

Sixty years after Allied troops liberated Auschwitz, it is important to remember what lessons can be taken from the unspeakable atrocities that took place during the Holocaust. It was racism, bigotry, anti- Semitism, and general religious intolerance that drove Hitler to pursue the destruction of the Jewish people.

To honor the victims who lost their lives in the Holocaust and ensure that such acts never happen again, there must be a concerted effort to fight intolerance and discrimination. That is what this resolution does.

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to visit Auschwitz; but before I was elected to Congress in 1990, my family and I and our two children visited Dachau in southern Germany, not only for my wife and I but also for our, at that time, 14- and 15-year-old children to see what inhumanity mankind could do to itself and not only for our generation but for that next generation to make sure that that never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, just for history purposes, I think in the 1960s we might have heard the same thing when we had the Voting Rights Act that needed to be passed by this Congress.

I rise today to address an issue that is at the core of our democracy: our ability to ensure that each vote cast by an American is counted.

Voting irregularities have been a major concern in our country for decades In October 2002, this body passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in order to eliminate voting irregularities and restore integrity and reliability to our electoral system. However, these new systems have not been without flaws. Software errors used in Florida's 2002 election lost over 100,000 votes, and at least 15 states, including Texas, reporting irregularities in their equipment throughout our most recent elections.

Under HAVA, this body provided billions of dollars to the states to replace old lever voting booths and punch card voting machines that produced the infamous ``hanging chads'' in Florida with more high-tech machines. However, this new technology conceals the most important part of the election process: the recording and counting of votes.

While there are no federal elections being constested in Texas, there are three State House elections that are being reviewed including one in my hometown of Houston. All of these election contests were brought by Republican candidates even though there are Republican county clerks and the Secretary of State is a Republican. While the process of contesting election results in our country is a peaceful process, I question how much faith the American people have in our ability to accurately report election results. Surveys leading up to the 2004 Presidential election indicated as many as 42 percent of Americans anticipated problems with our voting system and they were right.

I strongly belive voting standards should call for a paper trail in case a vote needs to be audited. Without such requirements, even having uniform standards would not enable us to accurately rely on a final vote count without a paper trail. Several states including my home state of Texas do not have the ability to print a ballot for verification purposes. The inability to conduct a complete audit of elections results is bad public policy and it's detrimental for our democrary.

Americans deserve the ability to confirm their vote and our democracy depends on the accuracy of our election process. It is time for this body to require that each voter receives verification that their vote was accepted and counted. No election is perfect, but we all deserve an election system that enables us to correct errors when they occur.

This country served as a guide to Afghanistan in their historic elections on October 4 of last year and now, we are assisting Iraq to make their first open election in history a success on January 30. If we are to serve as the world's model of democracy, we must ensure that every vote is counted, and if need be, is able to be recounted accurately and fairly. We cannot serve as the model of democracy if our own democratic process is flawed

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

The gentlewoman is correct: I currently serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. And despite what I read in the morning papers, the Republican leadership is eliminating a major traditional ethics standard of the House. While we are relieved that the Republican leadership did not go as far as they wanted to, I do not think we can be happy with the trend that is clearly downwards as it is today.

The new rule means no ethics violations will be investigated of party leaders, whether they be Republican or Democratic, control their members, since a tie vote means a dismissal. The logical result is more partisan political pressure on the committee members.

America was intended to be a city on a hill with the highest standards for the government in the world; and sadly, today we are lowering those standards.

The majority is proud of their political power and their skills at political games, and politics is an important part of our business; but principles must be held above politics because no man can serve two masters, both principles and politics.

When we are guided by only political consideration in the House leadership today, the House abandons its principles and the moral compass.

I do not enjoy serving on the committee. I do know something about legislative ethics, having first been elected to the State house of representatives after a tremendous Sharpstown bank scandal in Texas 1972. Born and raised in Texas, I understand what it means about conservative government, but I cannot begin to explain how

eliminating a traditional ethics standard is conservative in the slightest.

The House leadership can fool some of the people some of the time, like they did today when the papers said they were dropping ethics changes, when they clearly continue to weaken the standards. However, the people recognize this for what it is, a weakening of our government's ethics in pursuit of political parity by one party, be it Democrat or Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support Martial Law rules in the House of Representatives under any but the most extreme circumstances.

Some may have thought the House leadership would learn a lesson from the Omnibus Appropriations scandal, where a few Members and staff nearly got the power to read any American's tax returns because we did not have sufficient time to read the bill. Apparently they did not.

We could have passed this legislation under regular order before the election. We could have approved this legislation under regular order before Thanksgiving. But the House leadership has brought us to the point where we do not all have the opportunity to read this bill to determine what effects it will have on our constituents.

The rules of the House provide for 72 hours to review legislation before it reaches the floor. Like too many other rules to ensure good government, this rule has been violated repeatedly by the House leadership. They often resort to changing the rules when it pleases

them. This is a dangerous practice, especially for a bill so important.

From most accounts, some of which are conflicting, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 is a beneficial and important piece of legislation. I congratulate all those who contributed so much hard work.

As a veteran of the legislative process, I do not expect perfect bills. However, it is not too much to ask for all Members of the House of Representatives to have the opportunity to know exactly what they are voting on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor SSGT Russell Slay and to extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Staff Sergeant Slay was a constituent of the 29th District of Texas, and a true hero, who died on November 9, 2004 while serving his country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Russell Slay joined the U.S. Marine Corps at the age of 18, and had served his country

for 10 years. Staff Sergeant Slay was assigned to the 2d Amphibious Assault Vehicle Battalion, 3d Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. Staff Sergeant Slay was killed in the line of duty during Operation Iraqi Freedom while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar Province.

Russell Slay leaves behind his father Roy Slay, his mother Donna Slay, and his step mother Peggy Slay, along with his two children Morgan, 9, and Walker, 5, who live in Humble.

I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Russell Slay had become and that he died a hero while serving his country. America does not forget those who make the ultimate sacrifice.

His loss will be felt by all of Houston, and I ask that you remember the Slay family in your thoughts and prayers.