Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I look back to the year 2000 and I see a different country from the one we live in today. In 2000, we entered a new century having enjoyed a decade of unprecedented economic growth. During the 1990s we got our priorities together, erased the Federal budget deficit, and put in place the fiscal discipline that created a $5.6 trillion surplus. That $5.6 trillion surplus gave us the ability to tackle problems and ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

The election of President Bush, however, ushered in a new era of misguided priorities that have failed. Without a doubt, our country is worse off now than it was 4 years ago. We stand now, this administration has taken that $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into $4 trillion of red ink. Their insistence on tax cuts we cannot afford has starved our States, forcing them to cut countless services. We have lost 2.8 million jobs, most of them in manufacturing. Today, 44 million Americans are uninsured. We have an administration that cuts people from overtime pay and prohibits lifesaving stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, this administration's track record shows a derailment. The American people deserve a stable economy and a reliable health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3722, the Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004. This bill would prohibit the federal government from reimbursing hospitals for the emergency care they provide to undocumented immigrants. Under the bill, hospitals could only receive federal reimbursement if they provide the Department of Homeland Security with the patient's immigration status, financial data and employer information. The bill makes the immigrant's employer responsible for hospital costs and directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to initiate deportation proceedings against the immigrant.

Mr. Speaker, this bill flies in the face of the medical profession's mission. A hospital's job is to help any individual in need of health care, regardless of the patient's immigration status. We need to let our health care professionals do their jobs, not burden them with additional administrative details that, if imposed, will discourage immigrants from seeking care.

We already know the tremendous problems associated with the 44 million Americans who are uninsured. It goes without saying that the uninsured are less likely to seek preventive health care and, as a result, get care at the hospital only when their health problems have reached emergency proportions. This bill would only exacerbate this problem and discourage our immigrant population from seeking health care at all, for fear of being reported to DHS. This would increase the health risk for citizens and immigrants, legal or not.

It is unconscionable to me that we would consider denying necessary health care services to individuals solely based on their immigration status. This is a wrong-headed approach to addressing our health care problems and would only serve to decrease access to care.

As such, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and, instead, co-sponsor legislation that I have introduced to increase undocumented immigrants' access to quality health care. My legislation, H.R. 3273, would allow state and locally-funded programs to provide preventive and primary health care to undocumented aliens. H.R. 3273 addresses our health care problems at the source and would allow our local hospitals to see that their health care dollars are spent more wisely by preventing emergencies--not treating them.

Mr. Speaker, illnesses know no residency. Medical care shouldn't either. I urge my colleagues to reject the misguided Rohrabacher bill and address our health care problems--both in terms of access and funding--at the source by focusing their efforts on prevention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding constituent, Dr. Bob Peterson. Dr. Peterson was recently named Optometrist of the Year by the Texas Optometric Association. He has also been awarded the prestigious William D. Pittman Leadership Award by the University of Houston's College of Optometry, which recognized Dr. Peterson's leadership in the Northshore community.

Both of these honors represent the culmination of Dr. Peterson's thirty years of leadership in our community. A fellow graduate of the University of Houston, Dr. Peterson knows the true meaning of service. During his day job as an optometrist, Dr. Peterson works to ensure the healthy vision of his Northshore patients. However, his work day rarely ends at 5 o'clock. He has been a trusted volunteer for Lord of the Streets, working to help Houston's homeless population obtain prescription glasses. He is also a member of the Northshore Rotary Club and the Northshore Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. Peterson also recognizes the tremendous importance of education. Having served on the Galena Park School Board and currently a member of the Harris County Board of Education, Dr. Peterson knows the importance of a good education for our children, who are the future of our country. His work on area school boards and for the Education Foundation of Harris County is a testament to his dedication to our children and our future.

The Texas Optometric Association and the University of Houston couldn't have chosen a more dedicated, service-oriented optometrist to honor. Dr. Peterson deserves these honors and more for his tireless efforts, both in and out of the doctor's office, to keep our community healthy, strong and productive. I am honored to have him as a constituent and congratulate him on these awards and his outstanding achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to not only this bill but the package of bills. In all honesty, in this bill people do not get sued for malpractice in Federal court typically. It is in State court. Like the State of California, the States can deal with that issue.

I rise in opposition to these bills simply because we have more important pressing needs of our health care system, the fact that 44 million Americans are without health insurance. This week is National Cover the Uninsured Week; and coming from the great State of Texas, I find it alarming that over 30 percent of Texans are without health insurance.

My hometown, Houston, is the home of the world-class Texas Medical Center. Yet without health insurance, too many Texans do not have access to lifesaving medical research and treatments performed at the medical center. Tackling this country's health care problems does not call for the unsuccessful piecemeal approach that we are considering this week. Passing these three bills would just be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Our focus needs to be on providing all Americans with health insurance so that they will get the preventive care needed to keep them healthy and out of the emergency rooms. That is the way to keep health care costs down.

Unfortunately, policies enacted by this Congress and the States have taken health care in the wrong direction. Our fiscal policies have starved the States of crucial health care funding. State cuts in the CHIP program in Texas have dropped almost 170,000 children, and there is no way to ensure that our children get health care. To get our country's health care system out of this ditch, we have to stop digging. Let us give our children a healthy start and re-enroll them in CHIP. Let us also make sure that their parents can have access to the same care. In other words, pass legislation here to create a CHIP for parents. In my home State of Texas, that policy option alone would provide 67 percent of these parents with health insurance.

The uninsured in this country too often fall through the cracks of our health care system. For the health of our Nation, we must provide Americans with health insurance, not last year's ideas that these bills give them.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Cover the Uninsured Week where we focus our attention on the many health care problems confronting Americans without health insurance. This evening I returned to Washington from Houston after participating in a symposium, at St. Joseph's Christus Hospital, on the uninsured. St. Joseph's and Sisters of Charity have for decades served both the uninsured and the insured in the Houston area. Some of the most innovative and lifesaving research and treatment developments are being discovered in our backyard. The problem is that too many of our neighbors cannot access these lifesaving treatments because they lack health insurance.

Currently 31.2 percent of adult Texans are living without health insurance, more than any other State in this country. The growing number of uninsured in this country is truly a problem for all Americans. The uninsured often use the emergency room as their primary source of health care, which increases health care costs for all Americans. Americans without health insurance are less likely to seek preventive health care and only get care once their health problems reach emergency proportions. In fact, nearly 40 percent of the uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test and half of those people have not received care for a serious health problem in the last year.

I hope that Cover the Uninsured Week will result in a renewed debate about the serious health care problems that we face in our country and the actions we must take to ensure Americans access to quality health care. But we are increasingly going in the wrong direction. Uninsured, particularly children, have taken such a huge cut in the children's health care initiative program, the CHIPs program. I know in my State of Texas alone we have lost at least 107,000 children from CHIPs because of State budget problems. I am sure that problem is around the country with all our States.

As we have learned in the past, a rush to enact flawed policy is arguably just as bad as enacting no policy at all. A prime example is the new Medicare discount drug cards that are giving our seniors too little benefits and too many frustrations. This card was created from a flawed Medicare prescription drug bill that does not provide prescription drug coverage until 2006 and creates a huge gap in coverage forcing seniors to pay all their drug costs between $2,250 to $3,600.

Therefore, it is no surprise that I had doubts about our seniors' ability to utilize this first step, the discount drug card. I worried about seniors' access to information about the various cards and their ability to get reliable data from which to make an informed decision. Yet with great fanfare, Medicare released a Web site to provide just this information and allow seniors to compare the drug prices offered by the cards. That is precisely where the confusion began. The Houston Chronicle recently published an article detailing just how confusing this drug card is for seniors. In fact, the author found that the drug card was more confusing than preparing your income taxes or dealing with an insurance company regarding a hospital bill. I think this article sheds important light on the frustrations seniors are facing right now. I submit this article for printing in the Record.

[From the Houston Chronicle, May 4, 2004]

Medicare Drug Discount Cards Explained, Sort of

(By Jim Shea)

The first thing seniors need to find out about the new

Medicare prescription drug discount cards is if they are

eligible.

This will not be easy.

Doing your taxes is easy.

Trying to straighten out a hospital bill with the insurance

company is easy.

Explaining the infield-fly rule is easy.

Figuring out if you qualify for a discount card is, well,

let me try to put it in context.

Beginning this week, seniors who are thinking of applying

for the card can call for information. To handle the

anticipated volume, the government has hired 1,000 ``benefit

advisers.''

This sounds pretty good until you do the math:

Problem: How many times does 1,000 (government bureaucrats)

go into 12.5 million (confused Medicare recipients who may

call)?

Answer: Enough times to boost ``death by on-hold music'' to

the top of the mortality charts.

Next, let's explore the matter of choosing which of the 28

government-approved private companies you should get your

discount card from.

To make this choice, the government suggests you compare

such things as drug availability and price before signing

with a provider.

Seems like reasonable advice, except for one little hitch.

The discount card company you join is under no restriction

to maintain the price that enticed you to join in the first

place. In fact, it doesn't even have to guarantee it will

continue to carry the drugs you need.

In private business this practice is known as bait and

switch. In Republican-controlled Washington these days, it is

known as a benefit.

If this provision seems a little one-sided, a little too

big-business friendly, consider this: Even if you are baited

and switched and generally hosed all over, you are prohibited

from moving to another discount card company until your

mandatory one-year commitment is up.

I mean, you get better terms from the Gambinos.

In fairness, seniors at the low-income end of the spectrum

who manage to escape the registration process without

contracting a terminal case of phone ear will benefit from

the program. They qualify for an annual subsidy of $600,

which if they are smart, they will use to purchase round-trip

bus tickets to drug-stores in Canada.

Seniors at the high-income end of the spectrum, who own the

right stocks, will also make out well.

To everyone else, let me just say that if you can't get

your questions answered, give me a call and I will explain

the following:

The first thing to know about the infield-fly rule is that

it only applies if there are less than two outs and . . .

The first problem with the Medicare Web site is that a large number of senior citizens do not enjoy or are not proficient with the Internet. Frankly, I do not blame them for being skeptical about providing sensitive financial information such as their monthly income or other indicators of their financial situation. Yet even if our seniors are willing to go through all the steps on the Medicare Web site, the information generated is too confusing to help our seniors make a truly informed choice regarding their discount drug card. My staff and I attempted to put together a simple document to help seniors in our district easily understand the choices before them, yet it did not take long for us to realize there is nothing simple about this card.

One zip code in my district had 12 participating cards; yet a neighboring zip code under the Web site had zero participating cards. It is hard enough for a senior to determine what cards serviced their zip code. For example, a senior would also have to figure out if

her pharmacy accepted that card and if her drugs were considered preferred under that card. If that is not difficult enough, then that senior would have to compare that card to all the other cards in her area, for example, the one that had 12 with the neighboring zip code that had zero.

Unfortunately, the story gets worse for our seniors. After spending the time, energy, and brain power to choose the best card, seniors are not even guaranteed that the companies will continue to maintain the cost that is on that Web site or access to those particular drugs that the seniors have looked for and they need. The company is under no obligation to maintain its advertised prices or even carry the drugs that they need. If they start losing too much money on a particular drug, they can just cease to offer that coverage during the year. And while all these private companies get escape clauses, Medicare beneficiaries are forced to stay with each card for at least a year.

In the end I am afraid we will learn the hard way that this discount drug card is just as bad a deal as the Medicare drug bill that created it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Vision Caucus, I rise to recognize May as Healthy Vision Month, and to discuss the important recommendations of the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy as a way to prevent blindness and vision loss.

Good vision is critical to conducting activities of daily living, is important for language, and affects developmental learning, communicating, working, health and quality of life.

Unfortunately, far too many people are at risk for losing their eyesight. More than 80 million Americans have a potentially blinding eye disease, 3 million have low vision, 1.1 million are legally blind, and an additional 200,000 are more severely visually impaired. Despite the fact that half of all blindness can be prevented, far too many people do not access the care they need. If nothing is done, the number of blind and visually impaired individuals will double by 2030.

That is why awareness, early diagnosis and prevention are so important. Healthy Vision Month, a component of Healthy People 2010, is a national eye health campaign to raise awareness about the various conditions that can affect eyesight and cause vision loss.

Additionally, a coalition of leading eye health experts, including Prevent Blindness America, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lighthouse International, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, recently released the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy, to provide our nation with a framework for preventing vision loss. This report can be accessed at http:// www.preventblindness.org/news/releases/Action_Plan.html

This groundbreaking study recommends that, in order to reduce the occurrence of vision loss and its accompanying disabilities, our nation must concentrate our efforts on three priority areas: prevention/public health, access to care and treatment including rehabilitation, and research.

Our public health and prevention campaign must ensure that vision programs at the National Eye Institute (NEI) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have the resources they need to improve communication and education campaigns, increase surveillance, epidemiology and prevention research; and implement appropriate programs, policies and systems changes.

In order to ensure access to and availability of treatment and rehabilitation services for individuals with vision loss, we must support programs at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that remove barriers and improve access to eye exams currently covered under Medicare, such as diabetic eye exams and glaucoma detection for high risk populations.

We must also strengthen the Medicare program to advance coverage for Medicare vision rehabilitation services as provided by orientation and mobility specialists, rehabilitation teachers and low-vision therapists including in patients homes and their environment.

Finally, we must bolster our research efforts to improve our understanding of the eye and visual system in health and disease, as well as developing the most appropriate and effective means of prevention, and access to treatment and rehabilitation.

This report provides the roadmap we need to raise awareness about vision loss, give individuals the tools they need to prevent it, and give hope to the millions already suffering from vision loss that better treatments for can be found.

We would like to thank all of the organizations involved in crafting this report, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Lighthouse International, the National Alliance For Eye and Vision Research, the National Eye Institute (NEI) and most importantly, Prevent Blindness America. Prevent Blindness America should be commended for spearheading this effort, for bringing together these various groups, and for its almost century-long tradition of preventing vision loss.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to discuss the extreme frustration that our senior citizens are experiencing in applying for this Medicare discount card.

This card was created from a flawed Medicare prescription bill, so it is no surprise that our seniors are having problems utilizing it.

The Houston Chronicle recently published an article about how confusing this discount card is for seniors. The article found the discount card more confusing than preparing your income taxes or dealing with an insurance company regarding a hospital bill.

With great fanfare on Friday, Medicare released a Web site to provide seniors with the ability to compare drug prices. The problem is a lot of our seniors do not have access to the Web site or are not proficient.

Even if seniors are willing to go through the steps, it is so confusing that our seniors cannot make a truly informed choice.

The story, unfortunately, gets worse for our seniors. They spend time and energy and brain power and choose the best card, and seniors are not even guaranteed that the company will hold up their end of the bargain. The company has no obligation to maintain its advertised price that is on that Web site or even carry those drugs for the full year. And yet our seniors, once they sign up, are stuck for that full year. Also, if they do not sign up now, then they lose their benefits. They get penalized if they do not sign up now. It is a flawed bill, and it is causing problems now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my gratitude and appreciation for Billie Briggs who has been named a recipient of the Milken Family Foundation's National Educator Award.

Ms. Briggs teaches math at Cobb Sixth Grade School in Houston, TX and is regarded as the best though she has only been teaching for eight years. I commend Ms. Briggs for her accomplishment and dedication to her students and to education itself.

Ms. Briggs displays her dedication to all students at Cobb Sixth Grade School and throughout HISD by Serving as Sponsor of the Math and Science Club, National Junior Honor Society Advisor, Math Department Chair and by representing secondary-level math on the District Planning and Advisory Committee. In addition, her innovative methods of presenting students with fun projects through which they learn essential skills are praised throughout the education community.

I would like to congratulate Billie Briggs on being named one of our nation's top teachers and extend my thanks for her dedication to students in Houston.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to Laverne Hogan, a great leader in the Houston Community, who passed away Thursday, April 22, 2004 at the age of 65.

Laverne Hogan's work was instrumental in setting up the first enhanced 9-1-1 system in the state of Texas. Ms. Hogan began work on the system nearly 20 years ago working for then Harris County Commissioner Tom Bass and Houston City Councilmember Eleanor Tinsley. While serving in the Texas state legislature, and later in the U.S. House of Representatives, I worked closely with Ms. Hogan on a number of occasions to improve the 9-1-1 system in Houston and throughout Texas.

Just a few of her many accomplishment included being elected to and serving as the Southeast Regional President of the National Emergency Number Association from 1996 to 2000; being appointed to serve as a commissioner for the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications from 1992 to 1998 by Governor Ann Richards; and at the time of her death, Ms. Hogan was serving as the Executive Director of the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network, the largest 9-1-1 system in Texas, and the third largest in the United States.

Laverne Hogan will be greatly missed by all those who knew her, and all those she worked to protect throughout her dedicated career.

Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2004, I supported H.R. 3783, legislation to provide an extension of the transportation programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). I will also support H.R. 4219 today, but I am extremely frustrated with this process.

Here Americans are again, more than two months later, still waiting to see how many crumbs this Administration is willing to throw to our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The fact that Congress must approve another temporary extension of the Highway Trust Fund programs shows the lack of concern in the White House for America's transportation.

I support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users, the product of the hard and tireless work of two well respected members of the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar. I supported H.R. 3550 at the full authorized level of $375 billion through 2009. Chairman Young did pull that out of the air. That number came from the non-partisan career staff at the U.S. Department of Transportation. $375 billion requires indexing the gas tax for inflation, an idea I have supported since my days in the Texas State Legislature. I support that proposal only if every cent we pay at the pump to the Federal government goes to transportation. That is current law.

While the Administration refuses to accept non-partisan analysis, we are willing to accept the Senate's $318 billion level, $57 billion less than is necessary for a mobility improvement. Even this bi-partisan legislation is opposed by narrow ideological interests in the White House and House leadership who are blind to the number-one local issue in Houston, Texas--mobility.

To satisfy ultra-conservative groups that do not believe in Federal taxes of any kind, the Administration is willing to watch our highways and bridges crumble and rust. The Administration should be more concerned about putting Americans back to work. Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs, with 3.5 million jobs to be generated and sustained through 2009 under H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas.

Since roads are not built for free, rational people support a level of Federal tax necessary to pay for national defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and transportation infrastructure. The Administration does not grasp this, and here are some consequences for my constituents.

Residents in my community lose an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas each year in congested traffic. That is $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are

from Texas A&M's Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Report. Texas mobility is also impacted severely by the fact that 10 cents of every dollar we pay in gasoline taxes goes to other States. I strongly believe that Texas deserves at least 95 percent of Texas gas tax revenue for Texas transportation projects and have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 2208, to that effect.

But as we saw during the House vote on the Isakson amendment to H.R. 3550, it is hard to increase our slice of the pie to a fair level unless the pie is big enough to pay for the Nation's needs. Inadequate transportation investment means lost hours spent in traffic, lost job opportunities, and lost lives from unsafe road conditions. I call on the Administration to allow conferees to fully fund H.R. 3550 at the bipartisan level of $375 billion.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto, the victory of the independence for Texas, and the greatest, most diverse State in our Union.

Proving its timeless value as a story of political struggle and personal heroism, the Battle of the Alamo has been made into another feature-length motion picture, ``The Alamo,'' by Disney, not doing as well at the box offices we have, but I bet you it is doing well in Texas.

I encourage all Americans to learn and relearn this important historical story.

On this day I want to enter into the Congressional Record two newspaper articles from the Baytown Sun and the Pasadena Citizen that are newspapers in my district regarding the tremendous devotion and expertise of the San Jacinto reenactors, many of whom are my constituents. These folks have committed tremendous amounts of time and resources to providing an educational service to our community, and some of these reenactors have gone so far as mastering the original Mexican Army drills in the original Spanish, and many were involved in the production of the Disney film ``The Alamo'' as consultants and extras.

The story of San Jacinto occurs less than 60 days after the fall of the Alamo. On April 21, 1836, exactly 168 years ago today, approximately 900 Texans and Tejanos of the Texan Army overpowered a large and better trained Mexican Army. I say Texans and Tejanos because the struggle for Texas independence was not between Anglos and Hispanics.

For example, noted Tejano patriot Captain Juan Seguin commanded a cavalry company during the final victory at San Jacinto and later became a senator in the Republic of Texas. For those people that have seen the movie ``The Alamo,'' they will remember he was sent out from the Alamo seeking reenforcements and against his wishes was told to stay away so he could live to fight another day at San Jacinto.

One of the main proponents of the Texas Revolution was Lorenzo de Zavala, who served in the Mexican Government until the military dictator General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna abolished the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Zavala, a former Mexican citizen, went on to become the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas.

Less than 100 years after American patriots threw off the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texans and Tejanos succeeded in a similar struggle against a military dictator, General Santa Anna. In the words of the Texas Declaration of Independence, the people's government had been ``forcibly changed without their consent from a restrictive Federal republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated military despotism.''

As Sam Houston and other Texas delegates signed the Texas declaration of independence, General 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 Lieutenant Colonel William Barrett Travis, former Tennessee Congressman David Crockett, and approximately 200 other Texans and Tejano defenders were killed in action.

The Mexican Army was full of confidence after their hard-fought victory at the Alamo, and Texan forces were in retreat, but in late April 1836 they chose not to flee to the safety of Louisiana and instead turned to fight on the banks of the bayous outside of Houston, Texas. In fact, the San Jacinto battleground is in the new congressional district that I am receiving.

On the afternoon of April 21, 1836, the two armies were camped near one another, but the Mexican Army, confident of its superiority, failed to post guards during their afternoon siesta. They underestimated the determination of the Texan army in its fight for an independent nation and were totally unprepared for the surprise attack. As a result, the nation, and then the State of Texas, was born. Like the American Revolution, the Texan Revolution brought many different people together fighting military oppression.

A misconception of the Texas war for independence is that the conflict was a case of Anglos versus Hispanics. But accurate Texas history tells us that Hispanics who had long lived in Texas mostly did not refer to themselves as Mexicans, but instead thought of themselves as Tejanos. Tejanos inhabited Texas long before Mexico existed, and they lived there for the same reason Anglos later moved there, for freedom and productive land.

Many folks were happy under Mexican rule until General Santa Anna's forces began plundering areas of Texas, and then Tejanos and Texans both reacted with revolution.

It is inspiring to me that many Tejanos joined the fight for independence when the Mexican Government became an exploitive military regime. The brotherhood of freedom can be stronger than the brotherhood of nationality, as Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad, the Alamo, and also along the banks of the San Jacinto River, and in this the government of the Republic of Texas.

Like the American patriots in 1776, Texans did not create a perfect State with their independence. It would not be until June 19, or Juneteenth, 1865, that Texas' African American citizens achieved the freedom that is an inalienable human right. Every Juneteenth we remember that struggle for equal rights is long and difficult, and demands our own enduring commitment.

On San Jacinto Day we celebrate the achievements of Texan and Tejano patriots, and renew our commitment to preserving our represented government, freedom, and human civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will include for the Record the two newspaper articles that I previously mentioned.

[From the Baytown Sun, Apr. 7, 2004]

Re-Enacting History

(By Carla Rabalais)

```Let me die in the Alamo. Just let me get shot in there,'

I pleaded. But I was a Mexican officer, and no Mexican

soldier died inside the Alamo.''

Don Herlitz is a Baytonian, but most of all he is Texan, or

Texian, or Mexican captain, depending on the year in which

he's operating.

Re-enactors aren't strapped to the same calendar that most

of us are. They have the privilege of operating in both the

past and the present and with Disney's ``The Alamo,'' set for

release Friday, local re-enactors like Herlitz will also have

a presence in the future.

The film stars Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton and Jason

Patric. Already this week three sneak previews have unfurled

in Houston.

Crowds who lined up for those free seats were greeted by

local reenactors ready and willing to talk about their acting

experience and field expertise . . . locals like Herlitz and

his wife, Marie, Pete Juarez, Allen Hutton, Clabert Menard of

Dayton and David Pomeroy of Pasadena.

``That's what we do,'' Marie said. ``We talk to people

about Texas history and we show them what it looked like.''

The re-enactment window reveals all history's facts, from

the mundane to the explosive, like period clothing, hand-sewn

with home-spun cotton; cooking styles, with no electricity,

gas or running water; toys and games, which often doubled as

useful equipment; and weaponry, including home-fashioned

muskets, gunpowder and knives. The common denominator in

every category is ``authentic.''

Mexican artillery is one of Herlitz's specialties. He has

re-enacted Texas history for almost 20 years, but for the

past seven has portrayed a 19th century Mexican soldier. In

the Alamo, that expertise earned him an officer's role in

Santa Anna's army.

``Many of the re-enactors played both sides during the

movie,'' Herlitz said. ``I really wanted to--I even brought

my Texian clothes with me--but they wouldn't let me switch.

``That's all right, though,'' he laughed. ``After seven

years of shooting at Davy (Crockett), I finally got to die

beside him in the next film.''

``The Alamo'' united many reenactors, but that

battleground wasn't their first time together and it

certainly wasn't their last. In fact, since ``The Alamo''

completed filming last year, some reenactors have

participated in two additional films, including the one

Herlitz named. That film is ``Remember the Alamo,'' a

documentary that aired on the history Channel this spring.

David Pomeroy served as a site resource, re-enactor, and

cook--along with his wife, Cait--for the two hour

documentary. The business manager of Pomeroy Energy

volunteers his time and knowledge for of the San Jacinto

Battleground Association and is the author of ``Pasadena: The

Early Years.''

``There are eyewitness accounts and there are myths that

enhance the Alamo story,'' he said, ``and in some cases the

two contradict. The documentary addresses those historical

issues.''

Contradictory accounts of the Alamo were not the only

issues re-enactors face as they re-create turning point

battles in Texas history. To accurately re-enact, they had to

study history from multiple sources, not just American ones.

In their study, they came face-to-face with facts they never

were taught in grade school.

``The Alamo is a boiling pot of ideas and views,'' and

Herlitz, ``You can't just go by what a history book said,

because it's tainted by political attitudes. `The Alamo' is a

lot broader story and I think those issues will come out more

in the director's cut of `The Alamo' '' DVD.

``You see, those men on the inside of the Alamo were

trying to create a new republic, and the men on the outside

were trying to preserve a young republic. Who the heroes are

just depends which side of the wall you're standing on,'' he

said.

Allen Hutton of Baytown agrees. The pyrotechnician has re-

enacted since he was 12 years old and has worked in the

entertainment industry with movies like ``American Outlaws''

and ``the Patriot''. In ``The Alamo,'' he portrays both a

Mexican first sergeant and a Texian first sergeant.

``As a kid I learned the Alamo was about big, mean, mad

Santa Anna against the poor innocent Texians,'' he said.

``But the Mexicans weren't just `bad guys,' they were

protecting their country's land. Think of it in modern terms:

What would we do if some of Saddam Hussein's guard came here

and settled in a town and then said, `This is our land now

and you can't control us'?

``I don't want in any way to minimize the sacrifices made

by the Texians, but the Mexicans had a side too,'' he said.

Herlitz and Hutton filled similar roles in ``The Alamo''.

Both were involved in the movie a year before actual filming

took place and both were Mexican officers who trained

hundreds of extras during three-day boot camps.

Herlitz and his wife spent six months camping in a canvas

tent, cooking on an open fire, near Dripping Springs, where

the movie was filmed. Hutton camped on the set for five

months while his wife stayed in Baytown preparing for the

birth of their first child.

As Mexican officers, the two Baytonians were required to

learn maneuvers from an 1830s military guide written in

Spanish. Not modern Spanish, not Castilian Spanish, but a

colonial Spanish that is now obsolete. Or almost obsolete.

An extra who had come from New Mexico recognized the

language. His native dialect is a preserved form of colonial

Spanish, so he translated the book for the actors and

trainers. The drills Herlitz and Hutton learned became

second-nature to them.

``I can still tell you the (gun-) loading procedure in

proper Spanish,'' said Hutton.

During boot camp, they trained hundreds of extras. One of

those was Clabert Menard of Dayton, who was singled out for

the Texian side as an expert marksman.

``I ended up helping to train about 40 guys under me,''

Menard said. ``The more experienced re-enactors they put next

to the stars and told us to keep the other guys from running

in front of them.''

Menard, like many of his peers, has re-enacted since his

teens. He has represented many characters in his historical

career, including World War II soldiers, a French and Indian

trader and a Texas Army scout.

``I just want to eat, drink and sleep history,'' he said.

``We can replicate anything, except the fear of death.''

One of his favorite activities is to spend weekends hiking

15 to 20 miles into the Texas wilderness with nothing but his

1820s era gear. He used those items in ``The Alamo'' as well,

including two of his homemade weapons, a flintlock musket and

French pistol.

``I knew I could depend on my own gear,'' he said.

The boot camp involved marching drills and training

stations for learning stunt-fighting, horseback riding,

ladder manipulation, artillery use and firing orders. The

extras weren't the only ones who grew accustomed to the

orders, said Herlitz.

``The horses learned what the word `Action!' meant, so

whenever they heard it, whether they were supposed to move or

not, they took off,'' he said. ``So we had to have new

commands for starting the filming, like `Go!' or eventually,

`G-o!' ''

Herlitz and Hutton recall one moment in their six month

experience on ``The Alamo'' set that gripped both their

memories.

The film's director, John Lee Hancock of Texas City, had

been filming the Mexican siege on the Alamo for several

nights. But he held back the final attack where the wall

would be scaled and the Texian army killed. That would be

filmed on the exact anniversary of its occurrence, March 6,

at 5:30 a.m.

The actors filmed through the night March 5 and into the

next morning's hours. But moments before the final siege, the

entire set observed 13 minutes of complete silence, one

minute for each day of the Alamo siege, in memory of those

who lost their lives, both Texian and Mexican. Then at 5:30

a.m., the storming began.

``Whatever hardships we had to deal with during the filming

were all worth it right then,'' said Herlitz. ``To be a part

of that moment was something I will always remember.''

``When I do a job, I don't go to seek fame or rub shoulders

with stars,'' said Hutton. ``It's just a job and you

concentrate on doing it well. But that moment brought it all

together. That was as close as I will ever come to

experiencing the reality of the Alamo.

``Many of our guys were moved to tears. They were on the

Mexican side, and they saw it, too, as part of their

heritage.''

Local re-enactors who participated in ``The Alamo'' and

other living history events hope that the new movie will have

a ripple of positive effects through our state and nation.

``I hope it will get more people excited about history,''

said David Pomeroy. ``Then historical venues will have more

response and in turn receive more educational funding.''

``It's all for the kids,'' said Herlitz. ``As a re-enactor,

I believe children don't understand what price was paid for

freedom. The fertilizer to the tree of liberty is the blood

of the patriots. Someone has to be willing to put their life

on the line--for you to have the freedom to go downtown and

buy a $200 pair of tennis shoes. The Alamo is an excellent

example of the price people were willing to give--the

ultimate sacrifice.''

Some children are understanding that concept.

``I never really thought about the Alamo, but when I saw

the actual building and stood inside it, it was neat,'' said

fourth-grader Cody Fisher. ``A bunch of people were lost

there fighting for what they believed in.''

``There were brothers fighting each other, and whole

families coming apart,'' added Cassie Perez, also a fourth

grader. ``They wanted freedom.''

``I think if I had lived back then, and I was a little bit

older,'' said Cody, ``I think I would have fought for the

Alamo.''

David Pomeroy encourages families to ``See the movie, then

come smell the smoke.''

On April 24, a re-enactment of the battle of San Jacinto

will be held at the San Jacinto Battleground State Historical

Park. This year the re-enactment will be accompanied by a

living history festival. Local re-enactors from ``The Alamo''

will be onsite to autograph photos and talk about their

filming experience. Festival hours will be from 10

a.m. to 6 p.m. with the battle re-enactment at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Pfc. Leroy Sandoval Jr., who died while bravely serving our country in Iraq.

Pfc. Sandoval was from Houston, Texas and graduated in 2000 from Harvest Christian Academy. He joined the Marines on May 19, 2003 and attended basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego. Pfc. Sandoval was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, in Camp Pendleton, California.

On March 26, 2004, less than 2 weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pfc. Sandoval suffered a fatal bullet wound in a gunfight between the 600 Marines stationed in Fallujah, Iraq, and rebel insurgents.

I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but Pfc. Sandoval's family can be proud knowing that he died a hero while serving his country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill that is bipartisanly crafted by both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member; and they have made the best out of what is a bad situation. The fact that the administration is threatening to veto this legislation at the level of $270 billion shows the irrational negotiating posture of the opponents of infrastructure improvement and investment.

I support the $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. And where does that number come from? It comes from the level that the U.S. Department of Transportation says is necessary to improve the mobility in our country. Mr. Chairman, if we do not improve the mobility of our country, just in Houston we lose $2.1 billion every year in productivity in fuel and congestion, and it is getting worse. And these are not my figures. These are figures from the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility study. This highway bill is not pork barrel politics. It makes investment in mobility that the public desperately

wants and needs. Our gasoline user fees are for our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them, motorists and truckers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill where our bipartisan Transportation Committee leadership, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar have made the best out of a bad situation.

The fact that the administration is threatening to veto this legislation, at the level of $275 billion, shows the irrational negotiating posture of the opponents of infrastructure investment.

I support a $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. Where does that number come from? That is the level that the U.S. Department of Transportation says is necessary to improve mobility in the country.

Frankly, I support indexing the gasoline user fee to inflation, a method that is far simpler than having to stop every few miles and dig around for change in the car seat to pay a toll. Under this bill, tolls will too often be the only option available to make infrastructure improvements.

The funding level the administration supports barely allows us to tread water, while China, India, Japan, Europe, and other competitors are investing heavily in infrastructure to strengthen their economies.

It is frustrating to be confined by inadequate transportation funding during tough economic times because infrastructure investment brings major employment and development benefits.

Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs. At least 3.5 million jobs would be generated and sustained through 2009 under the $375 billion level in the original H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas.

Under this bill, we will get significantly less employment and economic activity than that.

The administration and self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in Congress do not seem to understand that residents in my community are idling away an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas this year in congested traffic.

Just in Houston, we lose $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are according to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Report.

This highway bill is not pork barrel politics; it makes investments in mobility that public desperately want and need. Our gasoline user fee funds our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them--motorists and truckers.

This bill has important projects for our area in Houston and across Texas, particularly U.S. 90, Clinton Drive, and a Harris County Freight Railroad Corridors and Urban Mobility Program.

This railroad project in particular needs more study and involvement by all stakeholders before we get to implementation, but the problem of grade crossings and mobility does need to be addressed urgently.

Some important policy provisions regarding transportation conformity are also included in this legislation, such as making the conformity process a four year cycle, voluntary limiting of conformity planning to 10 years, and allowing a 12-month grace period in the event of a conformity lapse.

I do not believe that these provisions solve all our problems, and I would hope that the cosponsors of our legislation in the conference will include further necessary improvements to the conformity process.

Our area of Houston is struggling to meet Clean Air Act requirements by statutory deadlines, and I think we will have success.

But to have our mobility crippled by losing transportation funding due to a confusing and contradictory process would be the worst public policy disaster in decades for our area.

Looking ahead to a conference with the other body, I want to congratulate the bipartisan Transportation Committee for its best work in a bad situation.

The closer we get our funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended level of $375 billion, the better off our economy will be.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the problem we have with America's unemployed workers.

My Texas colleague talks about how outsourcing is so good, and offshoring, well, I know it is not good in the area I represent because it is a blue collar district. For years and years we have suggested to our young people to go and get a high-tech skill so they can become a computer programmer, so they will not have to be a machine shop owner or a machinist, that they can go into the new economy. All of a sudden now we are finding out that that new economy, if you are making $45,000 a year in the United States, you are having to compete with someone around the world who is happy to make $15,000 a year with your same level of education. So we do have a problem.

Tomorrow marks the end of March and the 3-month period since the temporary extended unemployment compensation program began phasing out. During this last 3-month period, over 1 million American workers have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits and have been unable to receive additional help. There are 72,000 unemployed workers in my own State of Texas that have exhausted their benefits. There is no comparable figure in more than 30 years when this country has had so many unemployed workers exhausting their benefits.

Despite these undisputable facts, the administration and our Republican colleagues refuse to extend this important program, saying economic growth will yield job creation. Well, it has not for the last 3 years. Every indicator out there disputes this logic and tells the same story: This country is facing a jobless recovery. If it is a jobless recovery, it is not really a recovery where I come from.

Mr. Speaker, these indicators are bad enough, but, unfortunately, there is another story behind them that makes the outlook even worse. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent, but the true story is that rate does not take into account the 2.8 million Americans who have given up looking for a job and left the labor force altogether. These Americans are just as unemployed as those counted by the Labor Department; and if we include them in our statistics, the true unemployment rate stands at 7.4 percent.

When we look at the job growth figures, we see that 21,000 jobs were created last month. The true story, however, is that none of these jobs were in the private sector. Furthermore, the country needs to add about 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. If we count the net 2.3 million jobs that have been lost to this country since this administration took office and add the 4.7 million jobs that are needed to be created since then to support our population growth, we have a 7 million job gap in the labor market.

The measly job growth we have seen in recent months will not even begin to put a dent in that job gap; and, to make matters worse, the rolls of our long-term unemployed workers are growing. Technically, workers who have been out of work for more than 6 months are defined as long-term unemployed. Six months also happens to be the maximum length of regular unemployment benefits. Therefore, most economists consider the number of long-term unemployed workers as indicative of the need for temporary unemployment benefits.

If my Republican colleagues need further proof of our need for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits, I would encourage them to look at the number of long-term unemployed workers in this country. In each of the past 3 months, almost 1.9 million unemployed workers have been counted as long-term unemployed. America's long-term unemployed represent 23 percent of the country's total unemployed workers, at least those who are counted.

Moreover, the level of long-term unemployment is three times what it was when the recession began. Job growth in this country is, without question, weaker than any other post-World War II recovery period. As each week of this jobless recovery goes by, 80,000 more workers exhaust their unemployment benefits and have nowhere to turn.

A recent Congressional Budget Office study shows that, without these benefits, unemployed Americans double their chances of entering poverty and lacking health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the need for an extension of unemployment benefits has never been greater. In the absence of true job creation, it is imperative that these benefits be extended.

Again, when we see outsourcing, offshoring happening in the high-tech community, and we see the continual hemorrhaging of blue collar jobs being lost, our American worker's income security and their health depend on that extension.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for yielding me the time, and I have a prepared statement I would like to place into the Record.

It is interesting, all of our constituents think we talk about funny money here in Washington when it is really their money, but I look at our budget and see there are funny budgets; and I need to remind my colleagues of the prescription drug budget $400 billion last year, that could be as much as $150 billion above that, and the seniors around the country are rejecting it simply because it is not a quality program. So I worry about what we are seeing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican majority breaks a number of long-standing promises to my Texas community, seniors, students and veterans.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus. This continual use of Social Security to fund the administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable, and even prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest we cut entitlement programs or raise the age of Social Security.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind.

Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to provide any increase in the maximum Pell grants which 313,832 students in Texas universities use to help finance their education.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 billion in funds for the State Children's Health Initiative Program, SCHIP, to expire. Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children are dropped from the SCHIP program, and we are going to see it even more.

The budget breaks our promise to veterans, as just discussed, by $1.3 billion, short of what we need for veterans health care. The Vietnam Veterans of America called the Bush budget an insult to veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution.

The Republican majority breaks long-standing promises to Texas communities, seniors, students and veterans.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009.

This continual use of the Social Security to fund the Administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable and has prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest that we cut entitlement programs or raise the Social Security age.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind programs.

Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to provide any increase in the maximum Pell grant awards, which 313,832 students in Texas universities use to help finance their education.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 billion in funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to expire.

Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children have been dropped from the State's CHIP program, and this budget will only cause more Texas children to lose health insurance during a time when health care costs are rising rapidly.

The budget breaks our promise to Texas veterans by providing $1.3 billion less than what is needed for veterans' health care programs.

The Vietnam Veterans of America have called the Bush budget ``an insult to veterans.''

The budget breaks our promise to Texas communities by cutting homeland security funding at a time of increased security needs.

Houston is the only city in the U.S. to meet all fifteen Federal threat criteria, yet this budget provides no resources to address a shortage in first responder or port security funding.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative, which funds this country's priorities in a fiscally- responsible manner.