Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the American worker. As we wrap up our work for the year, 8.7 million Americans are without jobs this holiday season.

The administration keeps promising economic growth will bring job growth. Yet, even on the heels of an impressive third quarter of economic growth, the job market has not taken off.

The Labor Department reports that only 57,000 jobs were added to the economy last month, a figure that represents only one-third of economists' prior expectations.

We all know there are deeper economic problems contributing to the loss of American jobs. Our trade policies have produced record-level trade deficits and have only encouraged American companies to send good-paying jobs overseas where they take advantage of cheap labor.

However, as we sit here with 1 day left in the session, we need to do what we can today to help better the lives of the American workers. We all know that the administration talks about cutting taxes and putting money in our pockets, but typically the American working class gets very little of this extra money. What I want to know is if the administration is so intent on putting money in our pockets, why they are eliminating the overtime provisions that are in this omnibus bill we are talking about today. Why will they not extend the unemployment benefits? These are policies that give America's workers more money every single pay period. And if there is ever a need for extra cash, it is during the holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of my constituent Gustavo Montejano (Mon-tay-HAH-no) and his two daughters, Katia and Esmerelda.

Gustavo Montejano is a true hero. When his family's home caught fire early on Monday morning, Gustavo rushed his wife and 2-year-old son out of the house. He then went back to rescue his two daughters, who were still asleep inside. Unfortunately, the second story collapsed, and the smoke and flames overtook him before he could get his girls to safety. As the headline from the Houston Chronicle reads, ``He died hugging his two girls.''

While we are all deeply saddened for the Montejano family's loss, I know that those girls were comforted by their father's presence, and that they died together knowing that he loved them so much that he was willing to sacrifice his own life trying to save them.

Gustavo's family remembers him as a kind and generous man, who took in his sister and her eight children when they needed a home.

Despite the fact that he had been laid off from his job, he helped support his sister's family as well as his own, helping to pay bills and care for the children.

I know his wife, Maribel, and 2-year-old son are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Gustavo was, and that he died a hero's death.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret I was unavoidably detained and missed the three votes earlier today.

Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 656, approving H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall 657, approving H.R. 453, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall 658, approving S. 1156, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of the session because we always want to get finished. We did a martial law on Medicare so we could pass a 600-page document without having to digest it. Now we have a continuing resolution martial law.

But I really want to talk about the prescription drug provision in Medicare, because that is what will come up later. Our Houston Chronicle wrote an interesting editorial today which talks about the ``scribbled prescription'' in the bill that we are going to consider as an ``intended cure could be worse than Medicare disease.'' It talks about the provisions of this bill we are going to consider tonight is stingy because it does not begin until 2006; and that there is such a donut hole in the middle that people will lose, if they have $300 a month in prescription drugs, because they will fall into that donut hole. So it is stingy.

The critics point out that providing a drug component to Medicare encourages businesses to dump their retirees. I had a constituent call me the other day from a utility company who said he was worried his retiree benefits for prescription drugs would be cut. And I said unless you have a collective bargaining agreement, that could happen.

A concern I have, as they quote in the Chronicle editorial, is that the ``AARP, the most powerful senior citizen organization, has endorsed'' this proposal. Again, I am quoting the Houston Chronicle, ``But, as the plan before Congress offers such limited help for seniors with high prescription costs, it's no wonder so many people believe AARP's decision was motivated more by its own political dealmaking than concern for its 35 million members' best interests.'' And that is a direct quote.

Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress, a prescription drug bill was the goal, to pass something; but this bill actually goes in the wrong direction. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. HMOs do it, the Veterans Administration does it, companies do it; and yet now we are prohibiting Medicare from doing it by law. That ought to outrage our seniors, including those 35 million AARP members.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of S. 877, the compromise which has been worked out on the antispam legislation.

First, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for the many years of work she has put in with me and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I also thank the leadership of our committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their strong commitment to this effort which the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and I began almost 5 years ago. She had a terrible personal experience with spam, and I heard from constituents some of the same stories, and my wife and I have received some of that same unsolicited spam on our own personal e-mail account.

This legislation will set the fair and clear standards for e-mail marketing that consumers and the Internet need desperately. The future of e-mail is at stake, and the time to act is now. Congress is delivering the enforcement tools we need.

Importantly, this compromise has clear definitions of commercial e- mail which the FTC can enforce and any individual consumer's request to not receive further commercial e-mail from a sender will have the force of the law. Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information and deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and will be prosecuted as such.

After we enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to harvest e-mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the threat of prosecution. There are so many good things in this bill that it is hard to go over all of them in 2 minutes.

We will come after spammers from all angles. State attorneys general are empowered, and Internet service providers are empowered to seek damages up to $250 per e-mail or $6 million total.

After the success of the FTC's Do-Not-Call list, the Do-Not-Spam registry implementation is feasible. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and our ranking member, and I also thank the many cosponsors of our original bill, H.R. 2515, on the antispam effort.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some of the good things about this agreement that is in the bill S. 877.

Spammers who lie and deceive with false header information and deceptive subject lines will be lawbreakers and prosecuted. After we enact this legislation, spammers will no longer be able to harvest e- mail addresses from Web pages across the Internet without the threat of prosecution.

Our bill cracks down on automated ``dictionary'' spam attacks, the spam version of the auto-dialer that sends spam to every possible e- mail combination. Most importantly for our families, and something that the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) experienced with her daughter, this bill requires warning labels on sexually explicit e- mail; and we will be able to refuse further e-mail without having to view the offensive content. It will go after spammers again from all angles, from the Federal Trade Commission, from the States attorneys general and also Internet service providers who, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said, 50 percent of the networks oftentimes are unsolicited e-mail. They will be able to sue for damages of $250 per e-mail or a total of $6 million. It is there so our attorneys general have the ability and our ISPs will do it.

Finally, after the success of the Do-Not-Call list, the FTC is to plan a Do-Not-Spam registry within 6 months and will implement it if it is feasible.

Like my colleagues, our staff worked hard on it in both our committees, Judiciary and Energy and Commerce. I thank my personal staff, Drew Wallace, for working on this with all the folks involved.

Mr. Speaker, I know we are getting down to the last few minutes, but, like my colleague from Michigan, I ate a lot of Spam. I am holding up my gift of Spam from my cosponsor. Like him, the only way I could ever survive Spam was with A-1 steak sauce. I remember the story that my first time, somebody showing up at a town hall meeting and saying, I'm tired of spam and I said, thank goodness I haven't had to eat it in years. But I do remember it tasted pretty good in college when I needed it.

But now as my colleague from Michigan said, spam will not have a bad name for people who use the Internet. Again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for providing me a can of Spam. I am not going to cook it. I am going to put it on the wall so hopefully I will not have to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so- called Medicare prescription drug conference report. Much as I want to support legislation creating a prescription benefit for our Nation's seniors, I cannot support this bill. First, the bill does absolutely nothing to drive down the outrageous costs of prescription drugs. In fact, it expressly prohibits Medicare from negotiating for 40 million seniors lower prices, and yet it still allows the insurance companies to do it. But they prohibit the government from doing it. The benefit has a huge doughnut hole that forces seniors to pay all their costs from $2,250 to $5,100. I guess I am so frustrated with this bill the best I can do is read a poem about America's Greatest Generation.

Rest gently, America's Seniors

You saved democracy in WW II

You survived a depression, too.

You built this Nation

to a great world power

so it is right you rest

at this late hour.

But while you slumber

There are voices raised

In our Capitol yonder

Of your high costs for your drugs of wonder.

This proposed legislation

Considered in the dark of night

Will not reduce your cost a ``widow's mite.''

Awake you will from your night's slumber

To repay and respond to those who plunder

Your hard-earned Medicare benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called Medicare prescription drug conference report.

Much as I want to support legislation creating a prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors, I cannot support this bill.

The bill does absolutely nothing to drive down the outrageous costs of prescription drugs. In fact, the legislation expressly prohibits Medicare from using the negotiating power of 40 million seniors to demand reasonable prices for our Nation's seniors but allows insurance companies to negotiate.

The benefit has a huge ``donut hole'' that will force seniors to pay for all of their costs from $2,250 until their costs exceed $5,100.

So if you have drug costs that are $300-400 per month, you're only going to get a benefit for the first half of the year.

The rest of the year, you'll continue to pay premiums, but get absolutely nothing from them.

And finally, this plan would require Medicare to compete with private plans that would be paid more to treat healthier seniors.

There is no way Medicare could honestly be expected to compete with these overpaid plans, and I think the bill's crafters did that on purpose.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation leaves people worse off than they were before it. The CBO estimates that 2.7 million employees will lose their retiree benefits.

More than 6.4 million Medicaid beneficiaries will lose their wrap- around coverage.

And in the long run, seniors will be left shouldering a significantly higher portion of their health care costs. This is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and especially to honor those who have bravely fought and given their lives in Iraq.

Texans have a long history of serving in our military, and the same holds true today in Iraq.

There have been more men and women from Texas who have given their lives in Iraq, than from any other State other than California.

Since the U.S. launched its first airstrike in Iraq, 273 Americans have been killed in hostile action; 158 of those deaths coming after the President declared major combat to be over on March 1.

As of Friday, the Defense Department knew of 34 Texans who had been killed serving their country in Iraq.

Our hearts go out to the family members of these individuals who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country:

Sgt. Edward Anguiano, 24, of Los Fresnos, was killed in

action on March 23;

Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Arnold, 30, of Spring, was

killed in action on March 22;

Spc. Richard Arriaga, 20, of Ganado, was killed in an

action on September 18;

Sgt. Michael Barrera, 26, of Von Ormy, was killed in action

on October 28;

Staff Sgt. Gary Collins, 32, of Hardin, was killed in

action on November 8;

Capt. Eric Das, 30, of Amarillo, was killed in action on

April 7;

Pvt. Ruben Estrella-Soto, 18, of El Paso, was killed in

action on March 23;

Master Sgt. George Fernandez, 36, of El Paso, was killed in

action on April 2;

Pvt. Robert Frantz, 19, of San Antonio, was killed in

action on June 17;

Spc. Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza, 26, of Texas, was killed in

action on February 25;

Pfc. Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, 21, of Houston, was killed

in action on October 1;

Chief Warrant Officer Second Class Scott Jamar, 32, of

Granbury, was killed in action on April 2;

Staff Sgt. Phillip Jordan, 42, of Brazoria, was killed in

action on March 23;

Cpl. Brian Kennedy, 25, of Houston, was killed in action on

March 21;

Spc. James Kiehl, 22, of Comfort, was killed in action on

March 23;

Chief Warrant Officer Johnny Mata, 35, of Amarillo, was

killed in action on March 23;

Cpl. Jesus Medellin, 21, of Fort Worth, was killed in

action on April 7;

Sgt. Daniel Methvin, 22, of Belton, was killed in action on

July 26;

Pfc. Anthony Miller, 19, of San Antonio, was killed in

action on April 7;

Sgt. Keelan Moss, 23, of Houston, was killed in action on

November 2;

Spc. Joseph Norquist, 26, of San Antonio, was killed in

action on October 9;

Staff Sgt. Hector Perez, 40, of Corpus Christi, was killed

in action on July 24;

Second Lt. Jonathan Rozier, 25, of Katy, was killed in

action on July 19;

Cpl. Tomas Sotelo, Jr., 20, of Houston, was killed in

action on June 27;

Spc. James Wright, 27, of Morgan, was killed in action on

September 18;

Pfc. Stephen Wyatt, 19, of Kilgore, was killed in action on

October 13;

Pfc. Chad Bales, 20, of Coahoma, died on April 3.

Spc. Zeferino Colunga, 20, of Bellville, died on August 6.

1st Sgt. Joe Garza, 43, of Robstown, died on April 28.

Spc. John Johnson, 24, of Houston, died on October 22.

Spc. Christian Schulz, 20, of Colleyville, died on July 11.

Spc. Joseph Suell, 24, of Lufkin, died on June 16.

Sgt. Melissa Valles, 26, of Eagle Pass, died on July 9.

Sgt. Henry Ybarra, 32, of Austin, died on September 11.

These men and women gave their lives defending their country and fighting to liberate a country that has never experienced freedom.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of these individuals.

They served their country bravely, and they will forever be remembered as heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member and the chairman of the committee for working with us on this.

The National Flood Insurance Program is absolutely essential for the financial security and quality of life for millions of Americans who live near our coasts and rivers, and it is vital to our flood-prone areas. And I can relate to the gentleman from Louisiana's (Chairman Tauzin) concern because being a neighbor of Louisiana, we have a problem with flooding too, although we in Texas were not thrown out of Nova Scotia. We were typically run off, though, because we owed somebody in some other State. That is why we ended up in Texas originally.

So I am pleased that this legislation has been changed to reflect a more realistic definition of repetitive-loss properties, four strikes instead of the punitive two strikes in the original legislation.

And my community will also be glad to know that people who refused a buyout for whatever reason will not be denied Federal disaster assistance should they find their lives ruined by a future event.

As for folks who reach the definition of repetitive-loss properties and do receive a buyout offer from the Federal Government, the Bereuter substitute now allows for communities conducting these buyouts to offer replacement values when appropriate.

I want to express my appreciation again to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the subcommittee and also to the gentleman from Nebraska for their support of this important provision. I also want to note the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Bell) also assisted in this.

When FEMA came in to do a large number of buyouts after Tropical Storm Allison in Harris County in 2001, which flooded a total of 72,500 homes in Houston, Harris County, we had problems finding money so folks getting bought out could afford another home.

FEMA realized the necessity of replacement value in certain cases in my area and other areas. FEMA had to scramble to find funding from other programs, HUD programs and other sources, which is not ideal.

Some of my constituents, and again I do not have a wealthy area, actually received offers of $12,000 for their property because that was fair market value, which was completely inadequate for them to purchase anything outside the floodplain.

So I am pleased that the legislation incorporates our provision allowing communities to offer replacement value to flood victims when they realize that the fair market value is inadequate and FEMA agrees with that assessment. Without this provision, FEMA would have to deal with more homeowner appeals of buyout offers, and the time and the cost for repetitive-loss buyout projects would increase.

Again, the bill has so many good things about it, not just a typical extension of the authorization. And again I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on the legislation and being willing to address the needs of the flood victims. I am proud to support H.R. 253.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations conference report, which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th District of Texas.

It was flooding down in Texas yesterday, and this bill is urgently needed down in my hometown of Houston. This bill provides $35.5 million for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, which will allow our Nation's second largest port to continue to grow and handle the heavy energy and petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the smooth economic functioning of our Nation.

The Port of Houston is home to the single largest petrochemical complex in the country, with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 percent of the Nation's petrochemical capacity. By increasing the capability of the ship channel to handle newer, larger tankers more safely, Congress will directly increase the energy security of our Nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. We need to obtain an additional $12 million in reprogramming funding next year as the construction on the ship channel nears completion.

The ship channel is one of the primary economic engines in my district and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of thousands of jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands across the State.

For flood control, this legislation provides $750,000 for flood protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8.000 homes flooded in the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to moderate income.

The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during that event occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start moving dirt down there as soon as possible. This bayou came very close to topping its banks just yesterday.

I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us is the first comprehensive energy bill in over 10 years, and it improves our energy security for the entire country. There is a lot of room for disagreement on energy policy, and I would have drafted the bill differently, but I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill because it increases our energy security.

It is interesting, because we hear that people do not like energy companies. Well, they do not want to produce, they do not want to transport, they do not want to refine, whether it is electricity, gas, or oil; and what they do not want, they do not want to produce computers. What if we heard we did not want to produce computers or steel or autos? We still have to in a vibrant economy. Congress is always willing to help the steel industry that I vote for, the high- tech industry that I vote for, the aviation industry that I vote for, the agriculture industry. Yet when we hear about the energy industry, all we can say is, oh, they are just those rich companies. Well, let us look at our agriculture policy and some of our other policies.

A strong economy is not going to continue to be strong without a strong domestic energy production. This bill has a number of important incentives to improve our domestic supply of conventional energy sources. It allows for expensing of geological seismic work so we can look better for the industry. Faster depreciation for natural gas pipelines, deductions for independent oil and gas drilling activity. Royalty relief for marginal wells and deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which is where we are producing most of the energy offshore, since my colleagues in California and whoever else does not want it produced off their coast; but they do not mind driving their cars with it.

The bill makes a number of improvements in our electricity market. We are moving the national electricity market towards more what I consider a Texas model, meaning more open access to transmission systems for all power producers, leading to a competitive wholesale market for electricity. More choices and no blackouts. People wonder why MTBE producers are granted a safe harbor and grants to assist conversions. The Clean Air Act that everyone defends provided for oxygenates that included MTBE. That is why we need to deal with that, because it was required by law 10 years ago.

People wonder why MTBE producers are granted safe harbor and grants to assist in conversion of eligible facilities to new products. The reason is that oxygenates were required by the Clean Air Act because they clean our air, but the properties of oxygenates make them vulnerable in leaking tanks.

The public policy problem here is the leaking tanks and the unused tank repair money in the LUST (Leaking Tank) Trust Fund.

I also want to note H.R. 6's provision to study the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Frankly, I've long-urged this, and look forward to its enactment.

It's a fact: extreme weather kills. Heat's particularly deadly. In 1999 alone, nearly 500 deaths resulted from extreme heat, while seven were attributed to cold.

The Centers for Disease Control advises that home cooling effectively protects against heat-related death and injuries. CDC suggests ``exposure to air conditioning for even a few hours a day will reduce the risk of heat-related illness.''

As more Americans live within urban heat domes, and move to warmer climates, LIHEAP must respect our population and health science alike.

LIHEAP now fails to reach most qualified Americans wherever they live. This stems both from inadequate funds and their apportionment.

As the Secretary undertakes this analysis, it is important that the study identified and assesses:

Biases within formula toward heating or cooling, and resulting regional effects; LIHEAP's ability to adjust as Americans move about the country; the New or Old formulas' ability to accommodate changes in energy costs; ``home energy burden'' as an alternative means to guide distributions; extreme temperatures' effect upon human mortality and health, and LIHEAP's ability to protect at-risk Americans from these effects.

The Secretary's study offers a step toward reform. While woefully long in coming, it's an important opportunity to improve this essential program--which I welcome.

I urge my colleagues to unite in the support of energy security for our country. Millions of jobs, including manufacturing jobs are very much at stake here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to place in the Record a statement in offering my congratulations to the Rice University baseball team for winning the College World Series.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Rice University Baseball team. An exemplary group of young men, the Rice team won its first baseball national championship this year and showed the true grit needed to win the College World Series.

The Owls have been no stranger to the College World Series, appearing with the best of college baseball for 4 out of the last 7 years. The championship eluded them, however, until this year when they finished the regular season with an impressive 58-12 record. Thirty of those wins came during a remarkable winning streak.

And being a University of Houston graduate, it pains me to admit that the Owls' streak began with a 3-0 win over my beloved Cougars. However, if we had to lose to a cross-town rival, I'm glad that it was one who went on to win the national championship.

The national championship was even sweeter for Houstonians considering that the Owls crushed a Stanford team that had made its third trip to the finals in the past 4 years. And in winning the final game 14-2, the Rice team secured the largest margin of victory in any College World Series final game. Without a doubt, Rice's national championship is a well-deserved honor for a first-rate team.

My congratulations go out to the Owls, along with my best wishes for a successful 2004 season in defense of their title.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of both my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and also my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in the concern about what happened in the Medicare conference committee on prescription drugs.

It is sad that we came here to talk about a prescription drug plan for seniors, but we are actually going to take it away from them in the process. But the reason I am here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to talk about the problem we have in our country with the unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, as we embark on what we hope will be our last week in sessions before the holiday recess, I rise to warn my colleagues about the ghost of Christmas Past, the economic mistakes that Congress and this administration have made on the eve of past holidays. Let us take time to learn from those mistakes and not recreate them.

I can say with confidence that each Member of this Chamber was pleased to hear the impressive economic growth figures for July through September. Over the past 3 years, this country has suffered through some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, and it was certainly uplifting to see the reports of 7.2 percent growth in gross domestic product. While we remain optimistic about an economic rebound for the country, I, however, caution my colleagues against relying on the sustainability of this economic growth.

Economic indicators show that these figures were the result of consumer spending and a tremendous boost in the housing market. Yet with consumer spending outpacing consumer income, it is clear that spending cannot fuel our economic growth indefinitely. Let us remember our reaction to similar news in 2002. After months of job losses and a dismal economic growth, the country boasted growth of 5 percent in the first quarter of 2002. Despite our optimism, however, job losses continued and the next quarter yielded a 1.3 percent growth.

This time last year we were celebrating third quarter growth of 4 percent, and like today, entering the holidays with high hopes. Needless to say, our hopes were dashed and the country has since endured the worst job conditions in 20 years. These are our ghosts of Christmas Past, the flurry of mistaken optimism that failed to deliver on its economic promises.

Like the optimism of Christmas Past, this recent economic growth belies the fact that our manufacturing sector has cut jobs for the 39th straight month. My State of Texas, with 1.6 million lost jobs, ranks third in the amount of manufacturing jobs lost since September of 2000. While the country may be making modest gains in employment, 6 percent of America's workers are still unemployed. Almost one-quarter of these 8.8 million people have been out of work for more than 6 months. These figures do not even count the discouraged workers, 462,000 Americans who have completely given up looking for jobs and are no longer on our unemployment roles.

Fortunately, many former unemployed workers have found jobs, but we must examine the kind of jobs they are turning to; 4.8 million Americans work part-time, but only because they cannot find full-time work, and many of these workers are former engineers, former computer technicians who previously earned up to $60,000 a year, but now must settle for $7.50 an hour at a retail store.

No amount of economic statistics can hide the realities that these people face. Our unemployed workers are hurting. Our unemployed families are draining their savings to survive. And this Congress holds in its hands the ability to extend their unemployment benefits.

Let me remind my colleagues that the holiday season is the time of the year when we give thanks for our blessings and extend our hearts to the less fortunate. Last year, that important lesson must have been lost on the majority's leadership, because Congress packed up for the year without extending unemployment benefits.

That is right. Congress left town to enjoy the holidays and in doing so, left America's unemployed workers in the cold.

Mr. Speaker, this year is no different. Unfortunately, if we do not act soon, the Ghost of Christmas Past will be forced to remind us of the tremendous mistake we made by withholding these benefits last year. Even Scrooge learned from his mistakes.

I implore the administration and my colleagues to let us take a hard, realistic look at our economy and make sure that any recovery helps the Americans who have been most hurt by this downturn, and above all, let us pass the extension of the temporary unemployment benefits before we adjourn for the holidays.

It is the right thing to do for our economy and for America's unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my neighbor in Houston's motion to instruct conferees to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health.

The NIH is the crown jewel of America's biomedical research system. Thanks to incredible work done at NIH, Americans are living longer, enjoying a better quality of life, and witnessing cures and treatment for diseases that once meant certain death.

The Congress made a commitment to build on the success of the NIH by doubling its budget over the past 5 years, and I congratulate the appropriations process. I was a strong supporter of that effort, and I am glad that the President signed that fifth and final installment last year.

But, in all honesty, 2.5 percent is an embarrassment. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is a saying we have in some rural areas, Don't eat your seed corn. That is what we are doing here. The NIH research is the seed corn for our biomedical successes. If we do not continue to provide much more than 2.5 percent, then we are eating our seed corn in our country. That should not happen, because, in the long run, and even in the short run, our constituents' health will directly be affected.

Mr. Speaker, this is the smallest increase in 18 years for the NIH, a sharp deceleration from the 15 percent annual increases; and that is why I say, let us not eat our seed corn. Let us provide the opportunity for us and our

children and our parents to continue to benefit from the success of

Mr. Speaker, under current law, oil and natural gas exploration and production activities do not have to do the extensive stormwater permitting that is required for large residential or commercial developments.

The provision in question in the energy bill clarifies what is current law. Oil and gas drill site activity is not the same as residential and commercial building construction and should not have to do the same permits.

It is unnecessary, and the loss to our domestic oil and natural gas supplies would be severe. This motion to instruct is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

All the provision in the energy bill does is clarify that the definition of oil and natural gas exploration and production includes the preparation work for that exploration and production.

The provision in the energy bill does not roll back the Clean Water Act in any way. If a producer discharges reportable quantities of any hazardous substances in stormwater, they have to do stormwater permitting. If a producer's site discharges stormwater that contributes to a water quality violation, they have to do stormwater permitting. If there is a production site that I find out in my district that is actually polluting, then I will have them investigate it. That is under current law. And they should be.

The result of this policy, if we adopt this motion to instruct, is that we would have less domestic energy and higher natural gas prices. And with natural gas prices as high as they already are, the effects of this motion would now be very serious on the manufacturing jobs, not only in my own district that depend on affordable natural gas, but all over the country, whether it is in California or whether you are on the east coast.

We do not have a choice on where to get our natural gas. If it is by nature, it is by nature. We need to produce it where it is, and hopefully it will be more domestically. The opportunities for imports of natural gas from Mexico and Canada and overseas are limited. So we are going to have to depend on our own resources even more. It is going to be hard to do that. If we are going to have to depend on our own resources, it is going to be hard to do that with a bad regulatory policy.

The EPA, if they know that there is pollution already in an oil and gas site, they can go out. In California, that seems like where a lot of these motions to instruct come from; they can go out and investigate. If there is pollution, they can be cited. But do not make them go ahead and hinder what industrial production we are trying to do right now. That is all this does is restate what is current law, Mr. Speaker. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the Filner motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct made by my good friend and Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Congresswoman Capps, which would instruct conferees to drop privatization provisions and direct the savings to make sure physicians are paid adequately.

One of the most controversial provisions being debated in the Medicare prescription drug conference is one that would require Medicare to open to competition from the private sector in 2010. This provision builds on previous proposals to incorporate private plans into the Medicare program, such as the Medicare + Choice plan that was created in 1997.

Now they always say that those who do not learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them. Unfortunately, if conferees move forward on this path, they will most certainly repeat the mistakes of the past.

First, let us not forget that the Medicare program was first created because the private industry couldn't provide meaningful affordable health insurance to our Nation's seniors. Even more recent attempts to use private plans have failed. Between 1999 and 2003, 2,400,000 beneficiaries lost Medicare+Choice coverage, as health plans scaled back or ended their participation in the program.

For seniors who rely on continuity of coverage, changing plans and doctors every year is really not an option. And in many areas of the country, especially the more rural areas, HMOs have been pulling out and many seniors do not have an HMO option. And claims that this will really save any money are deceptive at best. According to CBO, this whole program is expected to save at best $1,600,000,000 over the next 10 years--less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of Medicare spending over that period.

It does not add one year to the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. So why this grant experiment? What's to gain by moving Medicare from the traditional government run program that has worked so well for the better part of the past four decades?

I would say nothing. There is nothing to gain by this provision. But there is plenty to lose. For the seniors who rely on this program to get the health care services they need, they could lose everything. Economic security, quality of life, their health, and even their lives. All of this for an ideological effort to dismantle the program by the very opponents who for years have want the program to ``wither on the vine.''

This is unacceptable Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to reject privatization efforts, support the Capps Motion to Instruct, and stand up for our Nation's seniors.