Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I place into the Record a statement concerning the majority's defense budget and also an article from The Washington Post that discusses the lack of armor for our troops in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today with concerns about the Department of Defense budget proposal.

Last fall before my colleagues and I voted on the Iraq Supplemental, we were told that there was money included in the bill to provide all our troops with necessary life-saving equipment.

Several months after passing the supplemental, however, reports started coming back from Iraq that there were still troops serving in Iraq that did not have Kevlar vests, and there were still humvees that did not have armor to protect the troops riding in them from bullets or shrapnel.

Last week, one year after the war started, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported that there are still a number humvees without bulletproof armor.

Then on Sunday, The Washington Post printed this article about Virginia Guard Units serving in Iraq that were wearing make-shift body armor their friends and family had sent them from home up until January of this year, 10 months after the start of the war.

I would like to submit this article for the Record.

Even more startling is the fact that these same troops are still driving around in humvees that have armor only because they were fortunate enough to have extra supplies at a machine shop on their base.

The safety of our troops should not depend on whether or not they have extra supplies on their base.

The Pentagon recently asked Congress to shift $190 million in FY04 money to pay for kits to armor humvees being used in Iraq, however this will not equip all the vehicles in Iraq and there is no money for this in the FY05 budget request.

I am troubled when I look over the Defense budget.

According to the 2005 Defense budget request there is money to double our investment in a missile defense system, but no money to armor the vehicles our troops drive in Iraq.

The defense budget states that a key part of the military's ability to meet its strategic goals is providing the best possible equipment to accompany any mission.

If this is the case, why did it take so long to provide body armor for our troops, and why are there still unarmored humvees driving around Iraq?

This administration says that there is no immediate need for a supplemental to fund operations in Iraq, but the budget leaves shortfalls in protecting our troops serving there.

Our troops are in a dangerous place, doing a dangerous job, and I hope the administration will correct these problems.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 21, 2004]

2 Million Miles, Makeshift Armor and No Fatalities; A Virginia Guard

Unit Survives Iraq's Dangers

(By Karl Vick)

Of the many perilous things an American can do in Iraq, the

most perilous of all is driving a U.S. military vehicle in a

line of other U.S. military vehicles, up and down a highway,

day after day.

The men and women of the 1032nd Transportation Company, a

unit of the Virginia National Guard, have been doing just

that for almost a year, logging more miles than any other

unit in Iraq--about 2.3 million so far, almost all of them on

the potholed asphalt of the region north and west of Baghdad

known as the Sunni Triangle.

That the 1032nd came through the past 12 months without a

fatality is regarded as exceptional good fortune by its

members, a motley, good-natured group that includes truckers,

students and at least one police officer, one iron worker,

one cell biologist and one bartender.

``We get outside the gate, we keep it to the floor,'' said

Spec. Jeff Combs of Jonesville, in far southwest Virginia,

near the Kentucky and Tennessee lines. ``So far we've been

really, really fortunate.''

The absence of fatalities is all the more remarkable, the

truckers say, because for the first three-quarters of their

tour, the drivers, gunners and mechanics routinely traversed

the deadliest sections of Iraq without bulletproof vests.

When a gunman in a speeding black BMW fired an AK-47

assault rifle into the chest of Spec. Nathan Williams, the

slug was stopped by a steel plate Williams had purchased with

his own money and then fitted into a Kevlar vest designed to

stop only shrapnel. Otherwise, the high-velocity slug would

have entered his heart.

``They were $3 apiece,'' said Capt. Joe Breeding, hefting

one of the crudely cut, quarter-inch-thick steel plates a

colleague had sent from a workshop in Virginia.

The shortage of body armor for U.S. troops recently emerged

as an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John F. Kerry

of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has

cited the shortage as evidence that President Bush cares too

little about the welfare of the troops. Bush TV ads, in turn,

have accused Kerry of casting a vote that would have deprived

combat troops of body armor.

But it has been a matter of lively discussion for almost a

year in Iraq, especially among the Guard and Reserve units

that were called up to play support roles but found

themselves in the thick of a guerrilla war.

``It was disappointing to me to see units that just got

here had vest, and we had been here six months doing without

proper protection,'' said Spec. Rodney Pilson from

Stewart. ``Something like that makes you feel kind of

segregated.''

Breeding, the unit's commanding officer, said the 1032nd

arrived in Kuwait last year largely ignorant of the state of

the art in personal protection. The Kevlar vests they carried

from Virginia were designed to stop shrapnel or a low-

velocity slug from a handgun. But they lacked the specially

designed boron carbide ceramic plates that can absorb a

bullet from an assault rifle.

Too few had been ordered before the war, senior commanders

told congress last fall, and first priority was given to

dismounted infantry, the foot soldiers most vulnerable in a

battlefield setting.

But within weeks, war turned to occupation, and the most

basic assumptions were flipped upside down. ``When we got

here, it wasn't as bad. The war was still going on,'' said

Spec. Cliff Vance, the bartender, from Wise.

An enemy that seldom chose to stand and fight preyed mostly

on military vehicles, employing booby traps and ambushes

using small arms. Transportation outfits such as the 1032nd,

which made two runs a day through Baghdad to and from

Nasiriyah, found themselves on the new front line with

equipment designed for the rear.

``We realize they had a limited number'' of ceramic-

equipped vests, Breeding said. ``One thing I didn't think

they realized is how the transporters are on the front line,

too.''

Some things the truckers could change themselves. Makeshift

armor was cut from steel plates at the machine shops in the

sprawling base set up on a former Iraqi airfield outside

Balad, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. Driver-side doors got

steel plating, later replaced by sheets of an alloy called

Armox. Kevlar-coated ballistic blankets were laid on cab

floors. Cargo Humvees became battle wagons, their back ends

enclosed in steel that protected the soldier manning the .50-

caliber machine gun mounted in the rear.

``You came here and basically you took care of yourself,''

said Spec. David Howard.

The improvised armor made the company, which is due to

leave Iraq this month, the envy of incoming units.

Sgt. 1st Class Kelvin Davenport, who will return to work as

a sniper on the police SWAT team in Bristol, said the

newcomers ask, ``When are you leaving? Can we get your

vehicles?''

There was a limit, however, to how much the truckers could

do to armor their own bodies. The Kevlar vests had no ceramic

plates, and there was no space between layers of Kevlar to

slip in an improvised plate.

Vests with slots to accommodate plates arrived in June, but

the boron carbide ceramic plates did not begin making their

way to the unit until November. The entire company was

finally outfitted in January.

``We got that stuff after we got off the road,'' said Sam

Stone, a mechanic and part-time driver, shaking her head.

The unit was in fact still driving in January, but by then

much of the military transport was being handled by a

civilian firm, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of

Halliburton. The 1032nd provided the armed escort, sending

its makeshift battle wagons ahead to scout for roadside

bombs--Davenport spotted more than 30 himself--and bringing

up the rear, still the most dangerous position.

``KBR was better equipped than we were,'' said Stone, a

student from Chatham. ``We used to joke about that. All their

drivers had actual bulletproof vests.''

Many of the unit's 105 drivers recount close calls. More

than a dozen of their trucks were

damaged by roadside explosives. But only five people were

wounded, and all five returned to duty.

Two of the wounded were hit not by roadside bombs but by

mortar attacks around the 1032nd's original quarters at the

corner of Texas and David Letterman Drive on the Balad base.

``I think that was scarier than driving,'' said Pilson,

idling with his fellow drivers in the shade of a eucalyptus

the other day. ``You wake up in the night to a boom, your

heart stops, man. You're supposed to feel safe here.''

The men beside him nodded and chuckled. National Guard

units grapple with a reputation as the military's second-

class citizens, frequently accorded less respect than

reservists. But the sense of family so often found in shared

adversity has a more familiar feeling in a unit where the

youngest member is 19 and the oldest 59. The only death in

the 1032nd this year was from cancer. It killed a man who had

survived Vietnam.

``We've been lucky,'' said Spec. Michael Bauman, 40, a

construction worker from Hillsville. ``I mean, you consider

over 2 million miles in this area, we've been lucky.

``It's the heat that kills you.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise first and foremost to thank the men and women of the Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan and literally all over the world. I supported the resolution to authorize the war, and in the supplemental request I continue to support those troops and their work, but I must express my continued concerns about the safety of the troops and the haphazard way the administration has proceeded in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we have no end game in sight. Our exit strategy is murky, and our efforts to help this fledgling democracy seem to be going nowhere. When this war began last year, it became clear our troops do not have the

life-saving body armor and vehicle armor they needed. Even with the passage of the Iraq supplemental last November, there are still too many soldiers at risk, and we are experiencing increasing reports of street fire, mines and ambushes aimed at our troops. It is unconscionable that they continue to lack the protective gear they need.

On yesterday's evening news, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported there are still a number of Humvees in Iraq without bulletproof armor, and I will include for the Record the news report. In fact, there are Humvees on the streets of Houston that have more safety features than the ones being used by our troops, according to the report. These vehicles are intended to transport soldiers and defend them in the war zone, and the last thing we should hear is soldiers' complaints that their family's sedans are safer than the military's soft-sided Humvees.

A year ago today, we started a war to remove an evil man from power; but in doing so, the lives of our troops are unnecessarily jeopardized by sending them into harm's way without proper armor and underequipped vehicles. Our troops are doing a dangerous job, and I hope the administration will correct these problems.

[From KHOU.com, Mar. 17, 2004]

Up Close: Military Leadership Little Soft on Vehicle Protection

(By Dave Fehling)

As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the war in Iraq,

we're learning more about an additional risk to our troops

overseas. Thin-skinned vehicles not designed for combat are

currently being driven by hundreds of soldiers in Iraq right

now. And several service men have been killed, including one

from League City. 11 News looks at the shortage of armor and

the rush to fix what some call a deadly miscalculation.

Last October, 20-year-old paratrooper John Hart phoned his

parents from Iraq and whispered words that shook them. He

felt exposed in his softsided humvee, the same kind in which

friends already had been killed or wounded in ambushes. The

vehicle offered less protection than the family sedan.

``We were thinking about how best to address it,'' says

John's father, Brian Hart, ``when we got news the following

week that John had been killed in an ambush.''

John Hart was shot to death in his unarmored humvee, along

with Lieutenant David Bernstein, fifth in his class at West

Point.

Diane Elliott lives in fear that her husband is also an

easy target in his unarmored humvee. ``A bullet came through

the humvee and through the back of his seat,'' she says. ``He

said there was a bullet hole, just barely missed his head.''

That was the second time Army reserve Captain Roger Elliott

escaped death in a canvas covered humvee in Baghdad.

The first time he got hit by a homemade bomb. ``They said

it hit the humvee, rolled off and hit the ground, and it blew

a big hole in the ground,'' says Elliot. ``Here's the humvee,

and screws and nails and everything flying, just goes right

through it.''

Captain Elliott's Purple Heart arrived in an ammo box,

along with his wife's wedding anniversary gifts.

Bullets, nails and shrapnel go right through the vast

majority of humvees in Iraq because they were designed to

transport soldiers, not to protect them.

A factory near Cincinnati is the only plant in the world

that produces armored humvees. ``This is what we end up with.

Fully armored doors, armored perimeter, turret,'' says a

factory worker. ``Underbody capable of defeating a

landmine.''

And windows that stop bullets. It's the kind of protection

soldiers are asking for, and dying for.

``It's maddening,'' says Brian Hart. ``It's absolutely

maddening.''

Maddening for John Hart's father, for Roger Elliot's wife.

``How could you not know you need armored humvees when you're

going into a war?'' asks Diane Elliott.

And maddening for the parents of Texas National Guardsman

Nathan Feenstra who says their son was sent to Iraq with old

soft sided humvees, and without new bullet proof vests that

have saved an untold number of lives since the war began.

``Basically, they're saying they've done all they can for

now, `It's too late for your unit, but we are preparing for

the next group going into Iraq,' '' says John Feenstra. ``I

said that's not good enough.''

The Feenstras write letters to military leadership, and

pray their son comes home alive.

Brian Hart is pressing congress to press the Army to speed

up production. The plan in Ohio is boosting output. But some

lawmakers are outraged. And the republican chairman of the

Senate Armed Services Committee called the shortage of

armored humvees ``unacceptable.''

The Army Vice Chief of Staff told Congress in September

more armored humvees weren't sent to Iraq because ``To be

honest, we just didn't expect this level of violence.''

Back in May there were only about 235 armored humvees in

Iraq. The army now wants more than 3,000. But it's expected

to take until summer of 2005 before the Army gets all the

beefed up humvees it wants.

To Brian Hart who made a promise to his son and to the

soldiers who brought home his son's body, that's not good

enough.

The army says it's rushed all available armored humvees to

Iraq, and is sending 6,000 kits to toughen up standard

humvees. It's also speeding up production of new armored

vehicles.

Meanwhile many soldiers are improvising, using steel

plates, rubber mats and sandbags to harden their humvees

against attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5 minutes out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the continual frustration that Americans feel when it comes to their jobs, or lack of jobs.

The American people are getting mixed messages when it comes to the economy, and we have a responsibility to give it to them straight and put in place the measures that are going to help.

The administration tells the American people that the economy is growing, and we hear today that a new survey shows that 28 percent of employers plan to add workers, but we have yet to see such strong growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates only 4.8 percent of the gross domestic product growth in 2003, providing strong suggestions that the growth touted by the administration is not sustainable. Not only is that growth not sustainable, the American people are not feeling the effects of it.

My Republican colleagues will say, but the unemployment rate dropped in January. However, by stressing the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent, they fail to tell the rest of the story that paints the true picture of the job market in our country. Job growth is not following economic growth. Profits are up, but job creation is not. It is that simple. The working-age population has increased by 2.4 percent and needed an additional 4.7 million jobs since March of 2001 just to support these new workers. Instead, jobs since then have decreased by 2.35 million, creating a gap of 7 million jobs lost in the job market.

There are not enough jobs to even sustain the growth in population, much less provide employment for all of our workers affected by plant closures, company downsizing, and the outsourcing. Each month, 125,000 additional Americans want to enter the workforce. These people are not to be confused with our currently unemployed workers; rather, these are Americans who have graduated from high school or college. And, the 112,000 jobs created in January do not even compensate enough for these new workers, much less help absorb the 2.35 million Americans who have lost their jobs since this recession began.

To make matters worse, the economy only created 21,000 jobs in February, and an additional 392,000 civilian workers left the workforce last month. However, the Labor Department's monthly unemployment statistics do not count that 392,000 unemployed workers. They do not count any of the 2.8 million Americans who constitute the ``missing labor force,'' or those who have given up looking for jobs or left the labor market all together. Sure, the unemployment rate can drop if we do not count those who have already left the labor force. But, if we include these workers into the unemployment statistics, the country's current unemployment rate jumps to 7.4 percent.

And what have we done for those who have found themselves laid off or unemployed? The administration cut taxes and said tax cuts will create 306,000 jobs each month. Yet, in 8 months, a total of only 294,000 jobs have been created, not the 2,448,000 that this administration said tax cuts would create. Just a little short.

If the Republican majority is not going to create jobs, they should at least help the country's unemployed by extending unemployment benefits. Again this year, Congress left town before Christmas without providing unemployed Americans with a 13-week temporary extension of their benefits. It is March now, and Congress still has failed to act on this important benefit to unemployed Americans.

The need for extended unemployment benefits is real. This is the longest recession without job recovery since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting data in 1939, since recovering from the Great Depression. This is the longest recession without job recovery. We do not need statistics to demonstrate that need. To those of us who hear from and visit with our unemployed constituents, it is equally clear.

We continue to hear the hollow argument that our recent economic growth

mitigates the need for jobless benefits. There has not been job growth in our country. I would like to talk about a conversation I had with a constituent of mine. Let us call her Mrs. Crawford. Mrs. Crawford, single and 60 years old, was laid off quite some time ago. In January she joined the 80,000 Americans who lose their unemployment benefits each week. I asked Mrs. Crawford if the administration's economic policies have helped her, and she told me that not only did she not receive any tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate the economy, the so-called economic growth as a result of these tax cuts has not increased her job opportunities.

The administration will tell her that the economy is growing, and we do not need extension on jobless benefits, but they have conveniently left out the fact that the temporary extension was created to deal with the very economic conditions we face today. In fact, the program was created when unemployment stood at 5.7 percent and the country had lost 2 million jobs. Now, the unemployment rate is at 5.6 and the country has lost a net of 2.35 million jobs. And with 80,000 Americans losing their unemployment benefits each week with no jobs to go to, there is no doubt about the need for an extension.

The Senate voted last month, 58 to 39, to support an extension. Let us stop sending the American people these symbolic, yet mixed messages of support, and pass a clean bill extending unemployment benefits. If the majority of this Congress is not going to talk straight on the economy, the least they can do is provide Americans with temporary relief.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Broadcast Decency and Enforcement Act of 2004, which is a bipartisan product of the

House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Both the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), have produced a good bill incorporating ideas of a number of Members.

Let me say in response to my colleague from California, I noticed a substantial change in the last 2 months with the Federal Communications Commission. And I will talk about that a little bit. That without this legislation increasing the penalties, without the hearings we held, we would not see renewed vigor and renewed interest by the FCC enforcing the decency standards.

And so, that is why even though the bill basically just increases the fines, what it did was it brought attention to the issue along with what has happened with our media outlets all across the country, I think, culminated in with what I think my colleague from New England would agree, was a great Super Bowl football game, but was eclipsed by what happened at half time.

So, granted, this bill raises the penalties, but it also brought the attention of the regulators and a renewed vigor in enforcing the current law.

It also includes an accountability in the bill that allows broadcast TV affiliates to place liability for content provided by the networks when the affiliates had little or no input on programming.

Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me on this provision. We ought to make the penalties be where the people are making the decisions on the content, and not someone who just happens to have a license, who would not want the Super Bowl.

The legislation also reaffirms the authority of the FCC to evaluate the licenses for television, radio, or broadcasters that repeatedly run afoul of FCC's indecency standards. Congress is not creating a new standard for content for public airwaves, we are only requiring that the current standards be enforced in a meaningful way.

I think many radio and television broadcasters and cable and satellite providers are taking significant steps to respond to the American public on this issue. Broadcasters are going to convene a decency submit at the end of this month. The sickest radio shock jock, Bubba the Love Sponge, is off the air. The television networks are going to delayed feed for live shows so we will not have any accidents as we saw at the Super Bowl.

The cable and satellite providers are stepping up efforts to educate their customers about their ability to block out channels they do not want to receive. And I hope these industry actions continue, and combined with our legislation, will cause the increasing indecency of broadcast content over the past few years to be reversed.

In Congress, we can get back to our important things. And this I do agree with my California colleague on reducing the national debt, creating more American jobs, expanding health care for our needy children.

The FCC has never been particularly motivated on the indecency cases, but in the last 3 years, complaints have increased so substantially, and after these hearings, now the Commission has seen a renewed interest in enforcement, particularly, again, after the hearings. And hopefully our action today will get the Commission in an even more aggressive motion.

Again, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and our new chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) are to be commended on their work here today. I urge my colleagues to approve the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly say something about our immediate past chairman. I think all of us send our prayers and our hope to the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on his treatment and his surgery for his illness that was announced this week. Again, as a Democrat, we worked together typically on our committee, and all of us hope that the gentleman and his family are successful in being treated. Again, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, today marks the independence of Texas, the greatest, most diverse state in the Union. Texas also has some of the most interesting and instructive history. I believe the lessons of Texas' struggle for independence are no less important today.

One hundred and sixty-eight years ago, March 2, 1836, Texan delegates met at Washington-On-The-Brazos to sign the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Less than 100 years after American patriots threw off the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texans and Tejanos were forced to launch a similar struggle against the military dictator, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

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

As Sam Houston and other Texan delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, General Santa Anna's army was besieging the Texans and Tejanos at the Alamo in San Antonio. That fortress fell four days later on the morning of March 6, 1836, when Lt. Colonel William Barrett Travis, Tennessee Congressman David Crockett, and approximately 200 other Texan and Tejano defenders were killed in action. Thankfully, their deaths were not in vain, as the remaining Texas forces under Sam Houston were able to surprise and defeat the much larger Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, just east of my hometown of Houston, Texas.

At San Jacinto, noted Tejano patriot Captain Juan Seguin commanded a cavalry company during this final victory and later became a Senator in 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 19th, or Juneteenth, 1865, that Texas' African-American citizens achieved the freedom that is an inalienable human right. Every Juneteenth, we remember that the struggle for equal rights is long and difficult, and demands our enduring commitment.

A popular misconception of the Texas War for Independence is that the conflict was a case of Anglos fighting Mexicans. But accurate Texas history tells us that Hispanics who had long lived in Texas mostly did not consider themselves to be Mexicans, but instead thought of themselves as Tejanos. Tejanos inhabited Texas long before Mexico existed, and they lived there for the same reasons Anglos later moved there--freedom and vast productive land.

So when General Santa Anna's forces began plundering areas of Texas, Tejanos and Texans both reacted with horror.

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 ethnicity, as Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad, the Alamo, and finally along the banks of the San Jacinto River.

On Texas Independence Day we reflect on our shared achievements, celebrate our peaceful cooperation with Mexico, and renew our commitment to preserving our representative government, freedom, and human and civil rights.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, long live Texas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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).

The fact that Congress had to approve yet another temporary extension of the Highway Trust Fund programs clearly shows the leadership of this Congress has misplaced priorities.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), legislation which is 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 call on my colleagues to enact this legislation at the full authorized level of $375 billion through 2009.

Their legislation is being held hostage by ideological interests in the White House and House leadership who are apparently blind to the number one issue in my community of Houston, Texas: mobility.

While transportation reauthorization is stalled in Congress, residents in my community are idling away an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas this year in congested traffic. 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.

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 it will be much, much easier to increase our slice of the pie and get to that 95 percent level, if we fully fund H.R. 3550 and have a larger, total pie.

The gasoline tax funds our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them--motorists and truckers. Every cent we pay at the pump to the federal government goes to transportation. How else should we pay for our unavoidable road, bridge, and transit construction? The current gasoline user fee method is simpler than having to stop every 5 miles or so and dig around for change in our car seats to pay a highway toll.

Unless we can fully fund H.R. 3550, our constituents will be stopping to pay a lot more tolls in the future. The amount of funding generated by the static $0.18 per gallon federal gasoline tax has significantly eroded over the last several years due to inflation. To allow for necessary highway construction the federal gas tax should be indexed to inflation, as proposed by my respected colleagues Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Oberstar.

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, with 3.5 million jobs to be generated and sustained through 2009 under H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas.

Inadequate transportation investment leads to lost hours spent in traffic, lost job opportunities, and lost lives from unsafe road conditions. I call on my colleagues to fully fund H.R. 3550 at the bipartisan level of $375 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment in Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's remarks about Social

Security. For any of you who missed his shocking pronouncement, Mr. Greenspan suggested Social Security benefits be cut for retirees, that the retirement age should be raised, and the cost of living adjustment, which was a whopping 2.2 percent this year, should be modified because it is too ``generous.''

In 2001, President Bush inherited a strong economy and a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. But that has been squandered and turned into a projected deficit of $2.9 trillion. We got into this mess not because of the war on terror, that I think all of us support, but because of the administration's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.

But Mr. Greenspan, who advocates permanent extension of these deficit-creating tax cuts, suggested we fix this economic disaster by raiding Social Security, not just borrowing from it like we do now.

Surely this administration does not want to pay for tax cuts on the backs of the elderly. It is pretty easy for Mr. Greenspan to sit in his ivory tower and modify Social Security to meet his economic world view, but for those people living in the real world, for folks who are hanging sheet metal, who are working on our docks and ports, working on the assembly line all day, Social Security is a critical safety net that cannot be taken away or reduced. These are not folks who have the luxury of playing the stock market, as the administration would propose, or work a few more years, as Mr. Greenspan suggests.

I hope and pray we reject his proposals and do not privatize Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Houston's Ironworkers Local 84 and to celebrate their one-hundredth year representing the interests of Houston's ironworkers. Our country's ironworkers have long been admired for the architectural wonders they created while working under tremendously dangerous conditions.

For the past one hundred years, the Ironworkers of Local 84 have put their blood and sweat into the bridges and skyscrapers that have become Houston's celebrated landmarks. Their service to the Houston community, however, did not cease with the end of the work day. During times of war, the ironworkers answered the call for help and offered their skills in the homefront effort to win the war.

Houston's ironworkers also have a long history of standing by each other. Local 84 has historically purchased cemetery plots to make sure that any deceased ironworker receives an honorable burial. Local 84 was Texas's first Ironworkers union to establish a pension fund and medical insurance for its members. Local 84 recognized early the importance of job training skills in remaining competitive in the field and Houston's Local 84 started an apprenticeship school and a program to upgrade the skills of its journeymen.

Local 84's commitment to its members, to the Houston community, and to the nation as a whole cannot be exaggerated. Therefore, on this day, I salute the hard-working men and women of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 84 and thank them for one hundred years of service. Our great city would not be standing as tall without them, and I wish them great success for the next hundred years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of PFC Armando Soriano.

PFC Soriano was a constituent of the 29th District of Texas, and a true hero, who died on February 1, 2004, while serving his country in Haditha, Iraq.

Armando Soriano joined the Army 2 months after graduating from South Houston High School in 2002. Soriano was assigned to the howitzer battery, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, in Fort Carson, Colorado. His unit in Iraq was attached to the 82nd Airborne Division of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. His vehicle, traveling with another one on a supply route, slid off a road and rolled over during bad weather.

Armando Soriano leaves behind his two parents, Clotilde and Enrique, and 4 younger siblings.

I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Armando Soriano had become and that he died a hero while serving his country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his hard work on this issue and urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if cosponsoring a bill is any indication of support for an issue, then the Frost amendment should pass by a minimum of 285 votes to 150. That is because 285 Members of this House have cosponsored H.R. 594, which is the underlying bill that the Frost amendment would add to H.R. 743. But now it is time to put our money where our mouth is. I am afraid that the so-called supporters of the GPO repeal are going to turn their back on the hundreds of thousands of public servants who are affected by the Government Pension Offset.

As we have heard, the Government Pension Offset unfairly reduces an individual's Social Security spousal benefit if he or she receives a government pension from employment not covered by Social Security. This is unfair and arbitrary and affects individuals at the Federal, State, and local level. Most often it hurts teachers, anyone who works for a school district, firefighters, police officers and other public servants.

Our office hears more about the GPO than practically any other issue. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, and civil servants are finding out every day that their Social Security spousal benefits are being reduced by the Government Pension Offset.

These are people who have dedicated their lives to making America better. When it comes time to retire, they lose out. That is because the GPO unfairly reduces Social Security spousal benefits by two- thirds, regardless of how much your government pension is. This is particularly unfair to low-income folks and widows, the very people Social Security was designed to protect. The Frost amendment would give us a chance to correct this serious problem and make sure that public servants receive a fair spousal benefit.

Like I said earlier, this is clearly a good idea, because 285 Members of the House have cosponsored this legislation, and that is why I urge support of the Frost amendment.

It is interesting to note we have someone, for example, in my own district who is a teacher for 30 years and has been married for 30 years; and when she retires, when her husband passes away, she is penalized for her spousal benefit under Social Security because she worked at a public school system, not by her choice; but they decided not to pay into Social Security because in 1983 that was one of the groups left out.

They did not pay into it, rightfully so, but under Social Security, under our law, if they are married 10 years to an individual, they have a right to those benefits, a spousal benefit.

It is interesting that our law punishes a group of teachers, for example, in Texas and Georgia who have said, okay, the law says I have to work 1 day; I will go work 1 day somewhere that pays both the teacher retirement and the Social Security. Is that right? Sure, it is not, but neither is the GPO, and that is why the Frost amendment is so important.

We need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and the best time is today, not waiting until the end of this year. We have been waiting for 15 years to reform the Government Pension Offset. So by voting for this legislation today, we are making the Government Pension Offset even worse. That is why the Frost amendment is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being able to ask a question to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Social Security, but all of Texas educators, teachers, administrators, custodial, cafeteria workers, everyone is affected by this bill. It moves it to be qualified to 5 years.

But let me explain the reason. They are not paying into Social Security now. They do not receive anything for what they pay into Social Security. It is for them as being a widow of someone who paid into Social Security.

The best example is that someone in my district works at a machine shop for 40 years and they are married to someone who works in a public school system in Texas, that the vast majority of the Texas school districts are not

participants in Social Security by law from this Congress. That widow, that person dies, the person who paid in their whole work life into Social Security, their widow is penalized by this legislation. So Texas has found a way around it by letting them go to find a school district and work 1 day. Well, it is a loophole, but, in all honesty, it is a loophole that benefits widows.

It is interesting. I want to deal with the big issues in Social Security, but, in all honesty, we need to deal with it without punishing the widows of people who have paid into Social Security their whole work life and may have been married for 40 years and then they get penalized by the Government Pension Offset.

This legislation may have good parts in it, but the GPO part is wrong. We ought to deal with the Frost amendment so we can have reform of GPO on this House of Representatives floor without waiting for the Committee on Ways and Means to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I have yielded my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez). I would have gladly asked a question, and we would not have had to have this debate if we could have asked the question earlier.

Mr. Speaker, even though I hate to disagree with another Texan, particularly the majority leader, but let me tell the Members the real story. It is not the unions that are the problem. Congress made in 1983 Social Security participation by some local governments voluntary, school districts. In Texas, very few school districts participate in Social Security because they have a teacher retirement system. Some do. But the problem we need to address in this legislation that we are not and it makes it worse is that we have a widow's benefit under Social Security.

I do not care if they have never paid into Social Security at all. They receive a widow's benefit if they were married to someone for more than 10 years. And we have cases in Texas that educators, not just teachers, custodial staff, lunchroom staff, administrators, maybe even superintendents, the highest paid, but it covers so many people that they may work under that system their whole life. They are career educators, and yet they are married to someone who pays into Social Security for over 10 years, maybe 30 or 40 years, and when their spouse passes away, that person may be receiving teacher retirement then.

All of a sudden, they say, I should get my spousal benefit because I am a widow. Tough luck. That spouse they may have been married with for 30 years, they receive very little, in fact, almost nothing under their Social Security benefits.

That is what is wrong with the current law. That is why Texans innovatively have found a way, okay, we will go work a day. That is a loophole. Let me tell my colleagues I have watched lots of loopholes pass through this House in my six terms, but I am glad for one time maybe teachers are benefiting from it.

But that is why we need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and

that is why I wish the committee would deal with it. But, in all honesty, this is making a bad situation worse, because we will have Texan teachers who have committed their lives to our public schoolchildren and they will be retiring before this bill is effective if they have their magic number of years plus age, and they will retire because they will not want to lose their spousal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank our ranking member on our Subcommittee on Social Security and also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security. I know we have a difference of opinion on this issue; and I guess it is frustrating, because with what is happening with our general budget, this year, this Congress and this government will take $155 billion and borrow it from the Social Security trust fund, and what is it paying for? A lot of folks will say it is paying for the war in Iraq. No, it is also paying for tax cuts that this House passed on two different occasions. But by this bill today, we are going to take away these same Social Security trust funds that are for these widows and people who paid into Social Security.

Again, let me explain to my colleagues, these are people who may never have paid into Social Security. If they did, they are subject to government pension offset, like everyone. But these people never paid in. They were educators or firefighters or police officers in a system that was not part of Social Security, but they paid into their own pension fund; and if their spouses die and they have been married for less than 10 years, we will not pay them their spousal benefit.

I do not know how much harder this Congress can get. When we talk about giving tax cuts to everybody in the world, and we let companies move their headquarters overseas as a sham, and yet we are going to remove the Social Security benefits from a widowed educator, and typically 80 percent of them are women, and her only problem was that she taught school or worked in the cafeteria or helped clean up schools. Because their husband was a Social Security beneficiary, he paid into Social Security, maybe for their whole work life, and so you remove it.

It is just frustrating that this bill is going to make a bad system even worse. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 743 and urge my colleagues to join in voting against it.

In many ways, 743 is a good bill, and I know there are some good parts in it, and I heard my colleagues on both sides. It would help stem fraud and abuse in the Social Security system. Well, I support that. I agree that fugitive felons should not collect Social Security benefits. And I support a number of other provisions. But, in all honesty, if we have a fugitive felon getting Social Security benefits, why are they still a fugitive?

Unfortunately, this has been wrapped up in an explosive issue that has caused serious harm to educators who are widowed by someone who has paid into Social Security.

We are all familiar with the unfair government pension offset; 285 Members of this House have cosponsored legislation to reform the GPO. This provision of current law keeps public employees from collecting full spousal benefits if they receive a pension based on State, local, or Federal Government employment not covered by Social Security. This provision is unfair and targets government workers at the Federal, State, and local levels. Again, 285 of us think it ought to be reformed.

The GPO is a problem for many public servants, but it is especially bad for women. Eighty percent of the Texas school teachers and retirees are women, sixty percent of that group are married, and almost all of them are eligible for Medicare through their husbands; but none of them are eligible for their spousal benefit because of the GPO under this bill.

After a lifetime of being underpaid as teachers, they depend on their Social Security widow's benefit to make up for their retirement, but the GPO takes that benefit away. That is why, again, the repeal of H.R. 594 is so popular.

The bill by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), have, again, garnered 285 bipartisan cosponsors. We had an opportunity to address this in H.R. 743; but instead of fixing the GPO, this bill makes it harder for Texas teachers to collect the full spousal benefit. Again, 285 members agree the GPO is unfair and should be repealed. We should not penalize Texas teachers for figuring out a way to do what this Congress will not do.

I urge my colleagues to stand for public servants everywhere and vote against H.R. 743.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Woolsey substitute. I am a strong supporter of both faith-based organizations and Community Services Block Grants. In the district I represent, we have many faith- based groups providing help with food, housing, counseling, and so many other areas. We could not do it without them.

America has long been a country of willing volunteers and people eager to give back to their communities and lift up those to whom life has dealt a difficult hand. Many people dedicate themselves to programs that rely on funding from Community Services Block Grants, food pantries, homeless shelters, Meals on Wheels, just to name a few. All of those right now are serving in the district I represent, and they are faith-based. All denominations, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, that I am a member of, all of them.

I do not think that we want to believe that individuals who want to help combat poverty or help their fellow people should be denied this work based on their religious beliefs. Thank the Lord, our faith-based organizations have always played a historic role in helping deliver these much-needed services, but their important role in delivering any Federal-supported services should not include the ability to discriminate against potential employees on the basis of religion.

Mr. Chairman, everywhere we turn, we see great need in our country. Too many of our citizens go without food or homes to shelter them. These needs know no religious boundaries. It is represented by Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, all beliefs. If Americans want to help meet this great need through our community work, we should embrace each and every one of them and not shut the door in their faces because they hold different beliefs.

From my days in Sunday school, the lessons I learned each Sunday morning have remained with me my whole life. Our religious beliefs are best judged not by what denomination we are, but by the actions we take and the manner that we live our lives. The ultimate judgment lies with God, who no doubt looks approvingly on any American who wishes to help their fellow human being.

Mr. Chairman, this is not only a moral issue; it is also a constitutional issue. The Civil Rights Act is clear that it is illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of religion regarding any condition of employment. My Methodist church, if they only want to hire Methodists, we have the right to do it with our tithes and offering; but you do not have the right to do it with my tax dollars.

This Congress should not be in the business of sanctioning discrimination of any kind, and that is why I urge my colleagues to adopt the substitute. The substitute in no way hampers the ability of faith-based organizations to participate in Community Service Block Grant programs. I have dozens of them today who participate in it and do not ask whether you are a member of their particular denomination or belief. It ensures that employees that are working in these programs are afforded the same civil rights protections that any other Federal- funded employee receives. On both a moral and constitutional level, voting for this amendment is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment from my friend, Mr. Miller, that would extend temporary unemployment benefits for America's unemployed workers.

It is shameful enough that Congress went home during the height of the holiday season and left many unemployed workers with no where to turn. Yet, it's been over a month since these benefits expired. And each week, approximately 80,000 more unemployed workers feel the stinging effects of our inaction.

The Republican leadership will tell you we don't need to extend temporary unemployment benefits because the stock market is up, the economy is rebounding and jobs are being created. Tell that to the half a million unemployed workers who've exhausted their benefits since December 31. The Republican argument simply doesn't pass the laugh test.

In the past five months, this country has seen net job gains of only 56,000. Any only 1,000 jobs were created in December. It is clear from these numbers that whatever economic growth we are experiencing is not translating into jobs.

Mr. Chairman, when this worthwhile program was created, unemployment stood at 5.7 percent and the President's net job loss numbers totaled 2 million.

The latest numbers show that unemployment is still at 5.7 percent, and net job loss has increased to 2.3 million. These numbers tell the true job growth story.

And no amount of economic rhetoric can convince me that America's unemployed workers aren't in need of 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits.

The American worker needs our help.

I urge my colleagues, let's do right by America's unemployed and pass this crucial amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Congress to quit playing politics with the pensions of American workers. This country faces a pension funding crisis in desperate need of the temporary fix provided in the Pension Funding Equity Act. Both chambers of Congress passed H.R. 3108 overwhelmingly, and both the House and the Senate should work in the same bi-partisan fashion in conference to produce a bill that can quickly be sent to the President.

By no means should we simply ignore the partisanship and lack of good will that has permeated Congress in recent years and thwarted legislative progress. But we also shouldn't address that larger issue by holding hostage the pensions of hard working Americans.

All of us agree that the new rate for calculating pensions must ensure that they are adequately funded. But the fact of the matter is, we need a temporary fix now, both to protect our pensions and ensure that we don't act hastily in determining the final rate.

Mr. Speaker, our workers are relying on us to pass H.R. 3108 quickly. The temporary funding formula expired at the beginning of this year. And if we don't act now, by April 1, companies will be forced to add inflated amounts to their pension plans, a risky requirement that could force many companies into bankruptcy.

I would also encourage my colleagues on the conference committee to include Senate-passed language that addresses multi-employer plans. These plans are entered into through collective bargaining agreements between unrelated employers. Multi-employer plans are crucial to employees of small businesses because the collaborative agreements allow small employers to provide defined benefit plans. These plans also provide employees with portable pensions as they move from job to job within the same industry.

The Senate language would provide the temporary relief that multi- employer plans need to address any funding problems and ensure that these important, flexible pension plans remain available to America's workers.

Now is the time to pass this pension legislation. We literally can't afford not to. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can't afford to take on additional pensions. American corporations can't afford to make inflated payments. And, most importantly, our American workers can't afford to lose their pensions.

Mr. Speaker, let's end the political games and pass this temporary fix to give us the time and flexibility we need to set a permanent replacement for the 30 year Treasury bond rate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1385, legislation which would allow the United States Postal Service to continue its successful breast cancer semipostal stamp. Proceeds from this stamp directly benefit breast cancer research.

Breast cancer is a serious concern for all of us. We all have friends, family members, constituents and colleagues who have battled this serious disease. Breast cancer does not discriminate--Americans of every age, race, religion, gender, economic standing and political affiliation are affected by this disease.

The figures are alarming. An estimated three million women in the U.S. are living with breast cancer--one-third of whom do not know they have this deadly disease. It is the most common form of cancer in America, excluding skin cancers. More than 240,000 new cases--1 every 3 minutes--occur in the United States each year. More than 40,000 women will die from the disease.

One of our strongest weapons against breast cancer is early awareness and treatment. Women who are screened and diagnosed early can begin treatment before the disease becomes more advanced. That is why raising awareness of the disease is so critical.

The breast cancer stamp has clearly helped to raise awareness and funds for this serious disease. Since it was first created in 1998, more than 421 million stamps sold, raising $29.5 million for biomedical breast cancer research. The alarming rate at which breast cancer is detected mandates that we continue to work toward a cure for this disease which is claiming so many lives worldwide. Enactment of H.R. 1385 will further enable research in an effort to increase the survival rate.

This disease calls for each of us to take a stand in an effort to find a cure and bring some solace to a disease that has tormented our mothers, wives, aunts, sisters and daughters. The importance of this stamp has immeasurable value and I strongly support enactment of this important legislation.

I encourage my colleagues to join the 145 cosponsors of this bill by passing H.R. 1385.