Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the election is over, and I rise to congratulate President Bush, a fellow Texan, on his reelection. I look forward to working with the President over the next 4 years, particularly to ensure the security of our Nation and to support our men and women in combat. The elimination of terrorist networks across the world and victory in Iraq are mutual goals on which I think we can work together.

While the President's election victory was decisive, 51 percent does not constitute a mandate. Nearly half of America voted for a Democratic platform that protects Social Security and provides more Americans with health insurance. So the President should not mistake this election as a mandate for his efforts to privatize Social Security.

To put Social Security in the hands of a volatile stock market would dismantle our Nation's secured social safety network. We must do more to stop the increase in Americans without health insurance. To expand health savings accounts and association health plans would increase the ranks of uninsured by more than 1 million per year.

During the President's first term, we saw the middle class dwindle, the gap between rich and poor widen. If the President wants to reverse this trend and provide Americans with true health care and economic security, we can work together. But if working together means enacting controversial policies that dismantle the social safety net, this President can count on aggressive opposition.

God bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the following obituary was printed in the Houston Chronicle, Thursday September 30, 2004, after the death of a good friend and great Houstonian, Ignacio Garcia.

``Ignacio Garcia was born September 3, 1917, died September

28, 2004. Ignacio immigrated to the United States under the

Bracero program and settled in Houston, August of 1959. He

worked as an auto mechanic in the near north side of Houston

and owned and operated an ``Enco'' gasoline station at North

Main and Pinckney for over fifteen years. He then opened a

garage with his son Victor and they worked together until his

retirement in the early 1980's. Although officially retired,

he was a constant help and source of inspiration and wisdom

to his children, grandchildren, and anyone who met him.

Ignacio Garcia was a 32-degree Mason and Past Worshipful

Master of the Lorenzo De Zavala Masonic Lodge #1397 A.F. &

Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 4232, which would designate the U.S. Postal Service located at 4025 Feather Lakes Way in Kingswood, Texas as the ``Congressman Jack Fields Post Office.''

Congressman Jack Fields was born in Humble, Texas. He received his bachelor of arts and his law degree from Baylor University in Waco, Texas and was admitted to the Texas bar in 1977. He served as a Member of Congress from 1981 to 1997. During his tenure in Congress he served as Chairman of the House Telecommunications Act of 1934, which was passed as the 1996 Telecommunications Act. He was also instrumental in rewriting the National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996 and the Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our health care system is at stake in the November election.

In one way or another, every American has experienced the good, the bad, and the ugly about our health care system; and the question voters all across this country should ask themselves is: Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?

Let us take one look at our administration's record on health care. Since 2001, an additional 5.2 million Americans are uninsured. For the American businesses and families, health care premiums have risen more than $3,500 in these 3 years. We are paying more and covering fewer people.

Under this administration's watch, seniors have felt the sting of double-digit Medicare premium increases. Seniors and everyone else's prescription drug costs increase steadily, and we watch the administration fight plans that allow Medicare to negotiate for lower costs.

The American people deserve better. This Congress should do better.

We should fund children's health care programs and expand to working families who cannot afford health care insurance. We need to reverse this administration's damage by cutting our families' health insurance premiums by $1,000 a year.

We should allow for crucial stem cell research that holds such promise for our loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear this November.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. It is truly fitting for the House to pass a reauthorization of MQSA during October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year, more than 215,000 individuals will learn that they have breast cancer. Hopefully, many of these will be early diagnoses, detected by mammograms that have proven time and again to be the most important tool for early detection.

Thanks to the efforts of HHS, the FDA and private advocacy groups, such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation, an estimated 40 million mammograms are performed annually. And thanks to the Mammography Quality Standards Act initially enacted over a decade ago, women all across America have benefited from uniform quality standards for mammography facilities.

For several years, I've been working with the FDA on issues related to silicone breast implants. I am concerned about recent studies on the effect of breast implants on mammography readings.

Specifically, an April 2003 NIH report highlighted clinical studies suggesting that women with breast implants have more advanced cancer at diagnosis than women without breast implants. And more recently, a January 2004 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that breast implants decrease the sensitivity of mammography screenings to detect breast cancer.

The FDA has been extremely responsive on this issue and has acknowledged that breast implants can hide tumors or make it more difficult to include them in the image. As such, the FDA has suggested that medical professionals take special implant displacement views in addition to those taken during routine mammograms. These extra views are crucial to ensuring that women with breast implants have effective mammograms.

The folks at FDA have worked wonders on mammography standards thus far. I have every confidence that they will keep up the good work and take into consideration the unique circumstances of women with breast implants. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, my interest in the consumer problem of spyware stems from many years of work on the consumer spam problem.

The anti-spam law was not expected to eliminate unwanted email, but it did draw a line for consumers--that some kinds of privacy invasion are not allowed. Internet Service Providers like Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and Earthlink along with State Attorney Generals are bringing serious actions against spammers who violate the law.

Spyware and illegal spam are not just problems of privacy and convenience, both can be the cause of viruses and other computer crimes.

Just like robbery and speeding have not been eliminated, neither will spam or spyware. But when something is harming social welfare and consumers are overwhelmed, and private sector solutions are not enough, then we need an enforceable standard.

This legislation prohibits the most commonly known deceptive acts and practices related to Spyware from tracking your web surfing habits to send you advertising to hijacking your passwords and credit care numbers.

However, while some use this technology to deceive and defraud us, this technology is also used to support our efforts in national security. This important use of technology is taken into consideration by this bill and exempts law enforcement, national security agencies, network security programs and diagnostics on repairs to our computers from the SPY Act.

In addition, state attorney generals will have the ability to enforce consumer protection laws against spyware and preserves state trespass, contract tort and fraud laws.

This legislation will draw a line that spying on Americans' computers will not be tolerated. Will some people continue to get away with it? Perhaps. But will some people be prosecuted and punished for violating our privacy? Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, September 23, 2004, I was unable to be present for the final three votes of the day, rollcall votes No. 470, No. 471, and No. 472, because I returned to my Congressional District in order to assist my constituents with the potential impact of Tropical Storm Ivan's imminent landfall on the Southeast Texas Coast.

On rollcall vote No. 470, to Order the Previous Question, I would have voted ``no,'' so that we could fix the underlying bill (H.R. 1308) to pay for the tax cuts and avoid increasing the deficit. In addition, the bill should fix the combat pay problem for military families that denies the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

On rollcall vote No. 471, on H. Res. 794, the rule waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308), I would have voted ``no,'' due to the increase in the deficit and the failure of the bill to address military families.

On rollcall vote No. 472, on the conference report accompanying H.R. 1308, I would have voted ``yea,'' because the legislation does provide significant tax relief to middle class families and provides important tax incentives to businesses. However, these tax cuts should have been paid for, and military families should have been included.

Mr. Speaker and fellow members. I rise to support this resolution and commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United Negro College Fund.

As the oldest comprehensive minority higher education assistance organization, the United Negro College Fund has enhanced educational opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young men and women.

In today's times tuition increases are the rule, not the exception, many minority students rely on organizations like this to navigate financial aid applications and to get the financial help they need to pay for school.

The students who attend college through this organization often go on to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, and elected officials.

United Negro College Fund students don't just become graduates, they become productive citizens and I congratulate all the students back home in Houston and across America who have been helped by this program.

$2.3 billion has been invested in our future by this organization and I wish the United Negro College Fund continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4077 today because I feel it is important for Congress to keep pace with those who use new technology to defraud consumers.

As a co-sponsor with our colleague Heather Wilson of the Anti-SPAM bill, I'd like to also thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees for taking action on this legislation.

We live in an age when technological breakthroughs bring us better, more efficient lives. However, these breakthroughs also entice people to take advantage of others for personal and financial gain.

Congress needs to address these types of issues quickly because as we all know, the fast pace of technological growth will always bring with it new issues for Congress.

During our experience with the Anti-SPAM bill, we all came to an understanding that technology itself is not the problem--it is the way some entities use technology that is harmful to consumers.

This legislation balances consumer protections against Spyware with the need to allow industry to use software technology to provide useful products and services to consumers.

I'm glad to stand with colleagues from both sides of the isle on this issue and rise to support this legislation. This bill will protect us from spy ware and get our law enforcement agencies involved in helping make the internet a more secure place to conduct business, communicate and learn.

Mr. Chairman, I include my statement for the Record supporting the Watt amendment, and also supporting the original Protect the Pledge Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Watt amendment to H.R. 2028, the Protect the Pledge Act. This amendment is plain and simple; it would restore H.R. 2028 to its original language.

I strongly support the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, in the last Congress I introduced H.J. Res. 103, an amendment to the Constitution that would affirm that the Pledge of Allegiance in no way violates the First Amendment. Unfortunately, Congress did not pass the resolution before it adjourned for the 107th Congress. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2028, I had hoped that it would protect the Pledge of Allegiance from unnecessary court battles without infringing on the rights of the people. However, with H.R. 2028 in its current form Congress has lost its balance between our constitutional rights and the law.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an important symbol of the privileges and rights that our founding fathers fought so desperately to preserve. Although the major controversy surrounding the pledge rests on the words ``under God,'' H.R. 2028 blatantly ignores the words ``with liberty and justice for all.''

Every citizen has the right to due process under the law. By stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to the Pledge, we take away the basic right for everyone to have their case heard before the highest court in the land. Article III of the Constitution states that Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the Federal district and appellate courts, but we do not have the power to decide which cases the Supreme Court can and cannot hear.

The Watt amendment restores the Protect the Pledge Act to its original language. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect our constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because of the tax relief that it provides our middle class and the incentives it provides for additional research and development.

Without hesitation, I support marriage penalty relief, the expansion of the 10-percent bracket and the extension of the AMT exemption.

I also am pleased that the conference approved extensions of the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit.

If I had my druthers, those tax credits would be permanent, but I will certainly support their extension.

While I wholeheartedly support the middle-class tax relief in this particular bill, I cannot cast my vote without also speaking out against the lopsided tax cuts that this Congress has enacted.

What convenient timing for this Congress to finally consider tax cuts for the wage earners right before the people are heading to the polls.

Any other time of the year, however, this Congress seems to be focused on giving tax relief not to the middle class, but to the corporations that seem to be doing just fine at avoiding their tax liabilities.

In fact, of the 275 largest companies that were profitable in the last 3 years, 82 of them paid no income tax during at least 1 of those years.

That's no income tax on a total of $102 billion in profits.

Not only did these companies avoid their tax liability, they siphoned even more resources from the Treasury--in the form of $12.6 billion in tax rebates.

In total, these companies benefited from $175 billion in tax breaks over the past 3 years.

Make no mistake about it, I'm glad we're giving the middle class the tax relief they need.

I just wish they didn't have to wait in line while this Congress gave away the farm to the corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. I would like to start with a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the electoral college.

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election

ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most

dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some

unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and

antipope.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that these unlucky chances are hitting us today. The stakes of American presidential elections are tremendous for all of us but our Presidential candidates focus their activities on small numbers of ``swing voters'' in roughly a dozen states.

This is an injustice. All Americans are created equal and all Americans vote should count the same. So today, I am reintroducing legislation I authored in 2001 with my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Baird.

Our legislation, the Every Vote Counts Amendment would begin a Constitutional Amendment process to create national elections that are simple, democratic and counts every American equally. The heart of the amendment is Section Three, which reads: ``The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.''

The people, not small groups of partisans, should be responsible for filling the highest office in America. The Electoral College violates the sacred democratic principle of ``one man, one vote.'' It should be abolished and replaced by something simple and fair.

Why should the candidate who wins the most votes not win the election? Opponents of this Amendment cannot justify why a less popular candidate should win, without saying, ``that's the way we have always done it.''

In 1913, Congress and the states trusted the people to elect their senators when we approved the Seventeenth Amendment. Today, we should trust the people to elect the President of the United States through a direct vote.

Every vote should carry the same weight in the election, no matter where in the nation it was cast. Texas Democrats, New York Republicans, California Republicans, and South Carolina Democrats would again have a say in the election of their President.

America is one nation, and our President should not wage a handful of separate campaigns in evenly balanced states, but one campaign, in all states, for all the people.

My constituents are unjustly ignored because neither candidate ever comes to Texas except to look for money, not votes. That is an insult to all Texans, Democratic and Republican.

Americans got a shocking look at our needlessly complex national election process in 2000, when we watched outcomes of recounts of hundreds of votes in a handful of counties determine an election in which over 100 million people voted.

We began to worry whether members of the Electoral College would be faithful to their states. We began to fear an election decided by just 435 individuals in the House of Representatives, which we have seen can be manipulated by redistricting.

There is nothing more simple and fair than: ``the persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.''

In America, every vote should count and they should count equally. Therefore, we should adopt the Every Vote Counts Amendment and allow the states to begin the process of ratification.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment and thank my colleagues for bringing it up.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the Department of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems and to improve our ability to monitor.

Since these rules were established, matricula consular ID cards have widely been accepted as a legitimate form of identification at a bank. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in other nations. These cards do not confer citizenship. They do not confer the right to a driver's license. All they do is say that Gene Green lives at a certain address, whether it be in Guadalajara, Mexico, or Frankfurt, Germany.

My concern about this, without adopting this amendment, we are going to limit our own consular office's ability to do this for our citizens. I would expect retaliation from countries who we are doing this to their consulates to do the same thing to us. I have some concern about it because we have thousands of our residents who retire to Mexico, retire to lots of places who may need this assistance from our own consulates. But in all honesty, we do need to have some type of identification for our local law enforcement to be able to deal with people that they can show.

Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, I rise today to support this amendment and I thank my colleagues for bringing it to this floor with bipartisan support.

When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the U.S. Department of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems and to improve our ability to monitor financial transactions.

Since these rules were established, Matricula Consular I.D. cards have been widely accepted as a legitimate form of identification to open a bank account. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in other nations.

If we do not amend this bill to keep the Matricula Consular identification card as a legal form of identification, it will be the only identification document explicitly banned as proof of identity in opening a bank account.

What bothers me most about the provision that we are trying to amend is it specifically targets a form of I.D. issued by the Mexican government. We could see retaliation against cards issued by our government.

Businesses in my home state of Texas conduct billions of dollars of business with Mexican companies. The need for Mexican nationals to come to the United States and establish legitimate bank accounts is imperative to the success of our state's economy.

The Department of the Treasury has examined this issue thoroughly and decided that a flexible standard which accommodates local conditions is the best and most secure for our nation.

Matricula Consular I.D. cards allow authorities to pursue those who are breaking our banking laws and then prosecute them diligently.

Without these I.D. cards, it will be more difficult for Treasury. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the rising health care costs facing our seniors.

This last week the administration announced that American seniors will face the largest premium increase in Medicare's history. Instead of roughly $67, now it is going to go up to $78 a month for their Medicare Part B premiums.

The difference amounts to a huge increase, far exceeding inflation or any potential cost-of-living adjustment that our seniors receive under Social Security. This adds to the Government Accounting Office just last week asking for part of the salary back from the person who withheld information from this Congress when we passed the Medicare reform bill last year.

We should not force our seniors to bear the brunt of the increased cost of Medicare. The administration's actions will force them to come up with an extra $132 a year just to cover the increased premium. For the average senior receiving Social Security, this represents 10 percent of their monthly budget. Unfortunately, if precedent is any indicator, seniors will continue to see double-digit Medicare premium increases under a second Bush administration.

It is downright shameful to saddle our seniors with the cost of the administration's failed health policies. America's seniors deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to the memory of those who lost their lives 3 years ago this September 11th.

Our country has still not recovered from this terrible tragedy, and people in the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon, those aboard United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and the brave men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty that day will forever be remembered for their bravery and sacrifice.

It was 3 years ago that these terrible attacks occurred and awakened this Nation to the hatred these terrorists have for the principles of freedom and for our great country.

Three years and two wars later, however, there is still much to be done to protect the people of this Nation and ensure something like the 9/11 attacks never takes place again.

It is still too easy for terrorists to cross our borders; our homeland security professional lack vital information they need to protect us; and our Nation's first responders still lack the training and equipment they need to prepare for, or respond to, a terrorist attack.

My hometown and the district I represent in Houston, is one of the most at-risk areas in the Nation.

Of all the possible targets in our area, including Houston's large metropolitan population, NASA's Johnson Space Center, and the Texas Medical Center, the Port of Houston and Houston's petrochemical complex remain one of the most susceptible due primarily to lack of Federal funding for our protection.

Based on Coast Guard estimates, port owners and operators are still short by over $400 million to implement port security plan upgrades, such as surveillance cameras.

The U.S. is home to more than 66,000 chemical production and storage facilities spread out amount our cities, towns, and rural areas.

According to the EPA, 7,000 of these facilities pose a risk to 10,000 or more people, however, the Department of Homeland Security has visited fewer than 100 facilities.

These facilities and surrounding communities deserve Federal support if we must increase their protection for national security.

These are necessary and vital steps we must take to protect our homeland, yet so many of these have gone unfunded while we have spent over $200 billion in Iraq despite no clear connection between the former Iraqi government and the terrorists that target America.

Three years after we were forced into this war on terror, we must assess what we have done and what we must do to protect our Nation.

We must go after the terrorists where they live and train, with all countries that share our values and our desire to root out terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, on a day when we are remembering those that lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks, we must make every effort to protect the people of this country so that we never have to mourn another attack on U.S. soil.