Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my growing frustration with the ongoing negotiations to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit. This could be the largest expansion of this program since the inception almost 40 years ago. Changes to this program will affect every senior in every District.

Unfortunately, leaders of the conference committee only seem interested in pushing their own agenda. They are not listening to Members on this side of the aisle, and they are not listening to the growing numbers of senior citizens.

We have to find out from media reports that our colleagues are considering provisions to increase premiums, means test the program and ultimately privatize Medicare. If these media reports are to be believed, then the proposed benefit is even worse than what initially passed this House floor by one vote.

Combined costs of the premiums, deductibles and copays amount to $1,300 per senior, just for $2,000 worth of coverage. That means that the government pays $700 and our seniors pay $1,300, almost twice as much.

Mr. Speaker, my seniors do not like the sounds of any of these proposals. They are already paying 22 percent of their out-of-pocket costs on health care, and even though they may vote for a Democratic Member of Congress, they still deserve to have their voices heard.

I urge my conferees to listen to their House and Senate colleagues and do a bipartisan bill that provides seniors with the relief they need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 313, the Animal Drug User Fee Act. This legislation is modeled after the successful Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which ensures that consumers have timely access to lifesaving drugs. ADUFA would establish the same expedited process to ensure that pets and livestock also have access to groundbreaking pharmaceuticals.

Despite a current requirement that limits the review time of a new animal drug application to 180 days, the review process takes an average of 1.5 years to complete, with some applications taking several years. Eighty-eight percent of original new animal drug applications are overdue, the longest day being 717 days.

Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't stand for that kind of delay for people, and I don't think that Man's Best Friend, or the livestock that feeds all Americans, should have to either. I support this legislation, and am happy to see it on our agenda.

However, I would point out that this House has not yet acted on legislation which would authorize the FDA to require pharmaceuticals manufacturers to test their products on children. For too long, doctors have been guessing about how best to treat our children. Kids are being used as guinea pigs because pharmaceutical companies haven't done the testing necessary to ensure that their products are safe and effective for kids. Many of us have been fighting for several years to ``codify the rule,'' and I am anxious to work on legislation that would do that. As important as animals are, nothing is more important than the health and safety of our children.

It is high time for us to put the interests of our children first. I urge the leadership of the House of Representatives to take up legislation which would ensure that the FDA has the authority it needs to require prescription drug manufacturers to test their products for children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that next Tuesday we will honor our veterans and the sacrifices that they made for our great country.

On Veterans' Day, we will each be back in our districts attending memorial events and letting our constituents know of our admiration for our veterans and our support for American troops currently in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What we will not be telling our constituents, however, is that Congress has a history of breaking its promises to these men and women who have fought bravely to defend the values and ideals that this country was founded upon.

When the men and women of our Armed Forces signed up for military duty, the local military recruiting officer told them that, for their service, they would get health care at VA hospitals. What they did not tell them was that they may have to wait up to 6 months for an appointment.

We civilians find it tough enough to get a doctor's appointment through our HMOs. Yet 60,000 veterans have had to wait 6 months or more to get in at a VA hospital. Even worse, 14,000 of America's veterans who are entitled to expedited claims have waited more than 15 months to be seen. To me, there is nothing expedited about a 15-month wait.

This is not the deal we struck with our veterans. They deserve better. We promised members of the military that we will take care of them if they sustained a service-connected disability. We also promised them retirement if they served their country for 20 years. Yet for those veterans who are both retired and disabled, we deduct their disability pay, dollar for dollar, from their retirement pay. What it amounts to is a disability tax on our veterans' pensions.

Can my colleagues imagine a private sector corporation treating its employees this way? Can my colleagues imagine a retiree pension being reduced by the amount of workman's compensation an employee receives? We all know that would never fly in the private sector, but this is how the U.S. Government treats its veterans who have risked their lives and safety defending our country.

Currently, 560,000 disabled military retirees across the Nation are affected by this disability tax; 65,200 of them are from Texas and 264 reside in the district I represent. These military retirees in my own district lose an average of $5,310 each in much-needed veterans benefits each year. They fought bravely for our country and earned every penny of these benefits, and we should not be wasting time on half-a-loaf compromises or deals that make veterans wait years for these benefits.

No, our action on concurrent receipt should be driven by the commitment that we made to our veterans who have, without a doubt, upheld their end of the bargain. The sad fact is, this country is not treating our future veterans, the men and women currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, any better.

I have no doubt they all appreciate the opportunity to come home for 2 weeks for much deserved rest and relaxation, but I find it unconscionable that we give them a free ride back to a port of entry in the U.S. and then leave them there to pay their own way home. Do we really think an enlisted Army private has the financial resources to pay for a short-notice flight from BWI, Baltimore Airport, to his home or her home? I can guarantee my colleagues we did not ask our men and women in uniform to pay their own way for any leg of their trip to Iraq. We should not be forcing them to pay for any of their trip back home.

This past weekend, the harsh realties of war hit us in Houston particularly hard as we learned that one of our own was aboard the Chinook helicopter bringing 16 of our servicemembers home. Sergeant Keelan Moss graduated only 5 years ago from Eisenhower High School in the Aldine Independent School District. A young man of only 23 years old, he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and will be forever remembered as an American hero. The loss of his life is a grim reminder of the constant dangers faced by our men and women in uniform.

And while we may often think of our military as a symbol of American strength and pride, we must also remember that it is comprised of individual Americans who are consistently putting their lives on the line, day in and day out, to defend our great Nation.

For their selfless patriotism, we owe it to our military members, both past and present, to keep the promises we made to them. As we send them in harm's way to defend us, that is the least we can do.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, I regret I was called away on urgent business and missed the vote on rollcall 576, 577, 578 and 579. I would like the Record to reflect that had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

On rollcall 567, I would have voted ``aye''.

On rollcall 577, I would have voted ``aye''.

On rollcall 578, I would have voted ``aye''.

On rollcall 579, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my colleague and the chairman of our subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

It is with reluctance I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by my colleague and longtime and respected friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). We have served together now for 30 years, and every once in a while we do find ourselves on opposite sides. Since I represent Houston, and I will deny under oath if necessary that we caused Dallas' pollution problems, but be that as it may, I understand the gentlewoman's passion to improve the air quality for her constituents. That is impressive and she is doing great work to raise the public profile of a difficult issue. But I find myself in a difficult situation myself today. A bipartisan group of my colleagues from north Texas and east Texas are blaming my area of Houston for increasing smog levels in their area.

First, let me say that the Houston area is doing everything in our power to reach compliance with the Clean Air Act. Our deadline is 2007. We have a tremendous amount of manufacturing facilities and jobs in our area. And reengineering these facilities without causing a regional recession is a challenge, but we are making progress.

The EPA has given areas with imported air emissions extra time to meet the deadlines, but the courts have ruled that they do not have that authority. A provision is in the draft conference report, which is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) talks about that allows the EPA the authority to extend the deadline for two years with areas with imported emissions.

Now, in the Houston area we do have some problem in imported emissions from if they have fires in Mexico, we receive it. But Houston would not come under this. But if the EPA decides that Houston's air quality significantly impacts Beaumont, for example, to the east and Dallas' air quality, then maybe they should also have the same deadline in Houston in 2007 instead of 2005. That is basically all this provision in the conference committee would do. We are not reopening the Clean Air Act. It is just allowing Dallas or Beaumont to ask for that extension.

I understand there are similar situations in areas all over the country. And I also understand the concern of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), that the deadline be moved back, because often we relax if it is not pressing.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe Dallas and Beaumont should not use an extension as an excuse to avoid local control and delay cleaner air for their citizens. But I do believe the EPA should be able to grant them an extension and give them as much time as my own area with the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3232, legislation to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs.

The federal child nutrition programs continue to be a great success story. The National School Lunch program, enacted in 1946 as a measure of national security, currently serves more than 28 million children each day.

The need for this program has never been greater. With childhood obesity growing at an alarming rate--especially among low income and minority populations--it has never been more critical that our children have access to high quality, nutritious food choices at school.

The legislation we are considering today is only a temporary reauthorization, since this program expires and we have not completed the heavy lifting necessary for a full five year authorization.

I urge my colleagues who are working on this issue to make a number of significant improvements to these various childhood tuition programs, including:

Increasing the income limit for those children who qualify for a free lunch from 130% of the federal poverty limit to 185% of the federal poverty limit, thereby eliminating the reduced price category of this program;

Providing the USDA commodities for the School Breakfast Program;

Lowering the area eligibility guideline to 40% for the Child Care, at-risk after school and Summer Foodservice programs; and

Increasing the USDA reimbursement rates for child nutrition, consistent with a USDA analysis of the costs to produce a lunch. In most areas of the country, the cost to produce a school lunch is now greater than the reimbursement rate for a free lunch of $2.14.

A child who is hungry cannot be expected to learn. A few years back, this Congress enacted legislation that promised no child will be left behind. If we are to keep that promise, we must ensure that all children have a healthy and nutritious lunch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to remind my colleagues of our most pressing domestic problem, the plight of our unemployed workers. I really should not have to offer this reminder to my colleagues. The recent newspaper headlines and the heart-wrenching stories from our unemployed constituents should be reminder enough. But it looks like this Chamber's leadership unfortunately needs to be reminded that the true victims of this recession are not corporations, but the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs over the last 3 years.

It is no secret that our manufacturing industry has been the hardest hit. Of the 3.2 million jobs lost over the past 3 years, 2.7 million of them were good-paying manufacturing jobs that provide a livable wage and sustain this country's middle class. These job losses were not the result of increased American productivity. They are the result of flawed American tax and trade policies that actually provide incentives for American companies to ship their jobs overseas. That is right, to ship these jobs overseas. In the name of free trade, we have forced our companies to compete against businesses in countries with no or little environmental standards and labor standards and that pay their workers low wages. And how do our companies react? They are forced to scour their books to find any and every cost to cut. They cannot disregard environmental regulations because that is the law. They cannot deny their American workers fair labor protections because that is the law. But what they can do is reduce labor costs by moving production to an overseas land without these worker or environmental protections.

Despite all that this country has sacrificed for free trade, the World Trade Organization, the WTO, has now ruled that this country's foreign sales corporation and extraterritorial income laws are illegal tax subsidies. Considering that these tax provisions were enacted specifically to help our manufacturing sector, this ruling comes at an extremely difficult time for the manufacturing and other export industries. With a staggering trade deficit that seems only to rise, the last thing our export industry needs is to be slapped with $4 billion in sanctions from the WTO.

So the answer is clear. Congress must fix the problem to comply with international trade law. If only it were so easy. Our friends on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have recognized the burden that a solution would place on our manufacturers who receive billions of dollars annually from these laws. They also recognize the tremendous impact that the manufacturing sector has on our country, that manufacturing has long been the engine of economic growth in this country. Not only does the manufacturing industry drive our gross domestic product, our GDP; it drives our job

growth. In fact, every million dollars in manufacturing sales creates 14 jobs, eight in manufacturing and six in our service sector. In contrast, every million dollars sold in the service sector only creates 3.5 jobs.

So when faced with tight budgets and record unemployment, it does not take a genius to see that we get the most bang for our buck by shoring up our manufacturing sector. The gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New York have put forth a bill that would fix this tax provision while mitigating the negative effects on our manufacturing industry. Most important, however, the aptly titled Jobs Protection Act would provide the necessary incentives to keep these well-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States. With this bill they hit the nail on the head. The AFL-CIO knows it, the National Association of Manufacturers knows it, and 149 of my colleagues know that this is the right direction to go.

Unfortunately, it is becoming all too clear that the fix is on. Just this morning, the Committee on Ways and Means chairman rammed a competing bill through his committee. Sure this bill fixes our problem with the WTO, but it only exacerbates the problems experienced by our manufacturing sector. They will tell you that the Thomas bill cuts the tax rate for manufacturing and production income, and it does; but it also includes a package of international tax provisions that only encourages companies to send more of their production jobs overseas. Sure we want to increase our exports, but I want those exports to be American products, not American jobs. The Thomas bill's focus on multinational corporations at the expense of our manufacturing workers is no way to restore strength to our ailing manufacturing sector. And it is no way to alleviate this country's unemployment problems, either.

When we consider these issues, let us remember that our unemployed workers are the true victims of our economic downturn. Let us keep in mind that they are desperately depending on us to help them. Let us not let them down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of unemployed Americans.

The administration and our Republican leadership tell us that the economy is rebounding and that we are in an economic recovery, but to the hardworking Americans who are still looking for those jobs, the statistics do not amount to a hill of beans because they still cannot find work. To them, a jobless recovery is no recovery at all.

America's unemployed have this administration to thank for an economic recovery that has produced few jobs and has little impact on their lives. Sure, the administration will tell us that job creation is its number one priority. In fact, over the past year, the President has gone on a nationwide public relations tour touting his tax cut in front of backdrops that proclaimed ``Strengthening America's Economy'' and shout ``Jobs, Growth and Opportunity.''

The truth of the matter is, however, that any growth produced by the administration's economic policies has come at the expense of jobs or Congress' opportunity to create them.

Let us take the administration's catch-all solution for any of our economic woes, tax cuts. The administration said that our economic recovery would be fueled by consumers who spent the extra money. Unfortunately, an income tax cut does not help unemployed workers without an income. They do not feel the economic recovery.

To this argument, the administration is sure to say, wait a minute, we also gave businesses tax cuts to expand and create jobs. Well, our businesses did not take their advice. Instead, they invested in technology and innovation, and in doing so, they increased productivity and can now produce more products without producing more jobs.

In fact, a recent Department of Labor study determined that our high unemployment levels are due not just to layoffs, but primarily to the lack of newhires in expanding businesses. So tax cuts for businesses have provided little relief for unemployed workers.

Our trade policies have also been truly devastating for the American worker. By implementing fast-track trade negotiating authority and permanent normal trade relations for China, we have seen American jobs go out on a fast track out of this country. I would remind my colleagues that 3 years ago, we were promised that trade with China would lead to an increase in American jobs and exports. Well, certainly, we were not told that, 3 years later, our main export to China would actually be American jobs, about 1 million of them to be specific.

Frankly, we have given American businesses little incentive to keep their jobs in this country. In ratifying a flurry of free trade agreements, we have made it increasingly difficult for American products to compete with their inexpensive foreign competitors. We have left many American businesses with few choices other than to move production, and jobs, offshore.

Additionally, too many of our service sector businesses are outsourcing their jobs to cheaper foreign labor. Today, we already have 400,000 jobs outsourced to a country like India. That number is bad enough, but even worse is a recent study indicating that over 3 million of these jobs will likely be outsourced over the next 10 years.

This country has already felt the tremendous pain of losing almost 3 million jobs. We need to take action now to encourage private sector business to keep these much-needed jobs at home.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in this country stands at 6.1 percent. The sad news, however, is that that number does not even take into account the thousands of Americans who have looked for work but have now given up. Labor force participation, the percentage of Americans who are either working or looking for work, is only 66 percent. It is at the lowest level since 1991.

We need true job creation in this country, not the administration's idea of job creation through permanent tax cuts, tort reform and more free trade legislation. That kind of trickle-down job creation will not work any better than their trickle-down economics.

Instead of their faulty economic policies, we need to stimulate the economy directly by aiding our cash-strapped States so that our law enforcement and teachers can keep their jobs. We should create jobs through public works programs that will employ our skilled workers while repairing America's crumbling roads and bridges. This is the kind of economic stimulus needed in our country. This is the kind of economic stimulus that creates jobs on the ground.

The administration tells us to be patient, the economy is growing and the jobs will come. Unfortunately, however, recovery based on increased productivity only lessens the chance for job creation because to create jobs the economy must grow faster than productivity, and it does not seem likely that our sputtering economy will be meeting these expectations in the near future.

So, here we are, with record-level trade deficits brought on by record-level tax cuts that will not do a thing for most of the American people hurting the most. And it is a shame, particularly because we had a choice. The administration could have pursued economic policies in the best interests of both our country and America's unemployed workers. Instead, they pursued economic policies in the best interest of their campaign and reelection efforts, and the unfortunate result is a jobless recovery, or if we ask our unemployed workers, no recovery at all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total support of our troops, yet I cannot deny my lingering concerns about the supplemental spending measure and the administration's priorities.

Last spring, this Congress provided $79 billion in supplemental funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And like most of my colleagues, I voted in favor of the bill and trusted that the administration's request was the result of a proper assessment of our military's needs. Imagine my shock to hear from my colleagues who visited Iraq that our soldiers and equipment are not equipped with lifesaving devices, such as top-of-the-line Kevlar inserts and armor for our Humvees.

I cannot fathom why the Department of Defense did not put our soldiers' lives as a high enough priority to provide each of them with a Kevlar insert, a lifesaving device that costs only $517. I applaud our appropriator for making funding available in this second supplemental spending bill to provide our brave men and women this necessary protection.

I also wish to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for raising the important issue of whether these funds should be administered as loans. With more than a $400 billion deficit and pressing needs here at home, we should be giving serious consideration to loaning these reconstruction funds to Iraq.

Our economy is sputtering along, we are not getting the international financial support we need for Iraq, and our deficit is ballooning. These are all signs that we should be seriously questioning the wisdom of granting Iraq and Afghanistan $87 billion that could be used wisely here at home.

Mr. Speaker, Texas children are being dropped from the CHIPS rolls and losing much-needed health insurance, yet we do not have the money to help our States protect them. Our bridges and roads are crumbling here, but we cannot pass a highway spending bill because we do not want to spend the money to put into it, yet we are supposed to have over $18 billion to simply grant Iraq for its reconstruction. I ask my colleagues, what about this country's reconstruction?

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our troops have my full and unwavering support. They have served our country with honor and bravery, and I am voting for them in supporting this bill. But I implore my colleagues and the administration to remember the urgent needs we have here at home and always put the needs of our country first.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which would allow states and localities to provide primary and preventive health care services to undocumented residents.

An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Current Population Survey collected in March of 2002 by the Census Bureau indicates that 33.1 million immigrants live in the United States. Among those an estimate of 9 million are undocumented residents and about 900,000 are persons on long-term temporary visas, such as students and temporary workers.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) prohibits public hospitals from providing free or discounted preventive service to undocumented immigrants--even if they pay for such services with State or local funds. PRWORA does, however, allow public hospitals to provide emergency room services.

This system has created a crisis in our nation's emergency rooms. Because undocumented residents cannot afford to see the doctor for routine physicals and preventive medicine, they arrive in the emergency room with costlier, often preventable, health problems. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that 29 percent of this population uses hospital and other emergency services in a given year, compared to the 11 percent use by the general U.S. population.

The costs of this broken system are especially burdensome for our nation's public hospitals. According to the Congressional Research Service, undocumented residents cost Texas taxpayers, insurance companies, and patients more than $173,072,108 million in 2001. Since the federal government is wholly responsible for establishing immigration policy, and for policing the borders to keep out unauthorized aliens, shouldn't the federal government pay for immigration related health care costs? Unfortunately, federal Allotments for State Emergency Health Services to attend to unauthorized residents are not enough to help with the cost, so stats are forced to shoulder as much as 50 percent of the costs.

Mr. Speaker, people should not enter any nation illegally. But I cannot understand a

health care system that forces patients to let their health problems escalate into full fledged emergencies before it will provide them care. Wouldn't it make more economic sense to cover preventive services rather than let illnesses develop into painful and expensive complications? Most importantly, should the federal government be telling states and localities how they can and can't spend their own health care dollars?

That is why I am introducing legislation which would allow--not require--state and local programs to provide the most cost effective preventive and primary health care to undocumented aliens. This legislation would not provide a new benefit for undocumented residents. However, it would make sure that our health care dollars are spent more wisely by preventing emergencies--not treating them.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing my good friend and seeing my colleagues on this side, it is a little awkward; but I know in the district I represent and the State I represent, I rise in opposition to the Capps motion to instruct energy conferees.

The motion supports an amendment to the energy bill banning a study of our offshore energy resources. I call that our stick-your-head-in- the-sand energy policy.

Our Nation needs to be aware of the energy options. The energy bill has research funding and incentives for the development of fuel cells, solar power, and other renewable resources. So why can we not know much natural gas is offshore of our country? When natural gas prices are above $5 per thousand cubic, we need to know what can be done about it. That is more than twice what our economy is used to.

Clean-burning natural gas is used to heat homes, generate power, and is feedstock for chemical and plastic manufacturing, and as fertilizer. There is not enough LIHEAP money out there to help all Northern consumers this winter. Power bills are going up and farmers cannot afford fertilizer.

Members all talk about the loss of our manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs that are in danger on the Gulf Coast are petrochemical manufacturing jobs that are in danger of moving offshore in search of cheaper natural gas, which means more manufacturing jobs in this country, period. To set the right policy for our offshore areas, we need to know what is there. That is all this study asks for. We are not talking about commercial exploration offshore; we are just talking about government research.

Commercial exploration may come later, but at least we ought to know what is available. If we want less natural gas production and infrastructure, higher gas prices and more lost manufacturing jobs in this country, then let us continue to support this motion. If we agree that we are in a natural gas

price crisis where we do not have enough of this clean burning fuel at affordable prices, I urge opposition to the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Federal Government ushered in a new fiscal year. And as is typical with the start of the new year, we look back at the last year and examine our problems and resolve to conduct ourselves in a more prudent manner. Unfortunately, last year was witness to a long list of physical indulgences, that have wreaked havoc on our economy to the tune of a $400 billion deficit.

The administration will tell you that this deficit is temporary. We all know that these tax cuts raise the deficit, but they will tell you that the tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy enough to grow out of our deficit problems. Unfortunately, the numbers just do not add up.

From 2001 to 2006 the average American will receive about $3,593 in tax cuts. That seems like a pretty good chunk of change until we realize that these tax cuts increased our individual share of the national debt by $13,000 in the same period. Any of my wife's former algebra students could tell you that it is not a good deal to get $3,600 and in return and have to pay $13,000. To put it another way, for each dollar we receive in tax cuts, our government is forced to borrow $3.60 to finance them and pay for other government operations.

That is right. Other government operations, including the war on terrorism, including everything else we have, an economy that is not growing. We hear we are in recovery, but it is a jobless recovery. If you are unemployed, it is not a recovery.

Nearly one quarter of our deficit is going to finance tax cuts, and I ask my colleagues, for what? Now, I know that not all deficits can be considered indulgent. Running a deficit can actually help the economy when it pays for job growth during an economic slump or even in times of expansion, deficits may be needed to fund education or research that will contribute to future economic growth. But these tax cuts, Mr. Speaker, were excessive, and they are contributing only to the ballooning deficit that is weighing our country down.

It just does not make economic sense to try to stimulate the economy through tax cuts geared toward the wealthy who are just going to save that extra money. The money simply does not get into our economy. And to make matters worse, instead of stimulating our economy, these tax cuts are increasing the deficit that is going to start worrying investors.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that it is bad news when investors begin to worry. Interest rates go up, consumer spending slows, and then we are in worse shape than we found ourselves before. All the tax cuts have done is fatten the pockets of those who need it the least.

Let us take the dividend tax cut as an example. This tax cut was designed to encourage companies to increase investor dividends. Theoretically, investors would either spend the dividends or reinvest them, either option will stimulate the economy. So after the dividend tax cut was passed, City Group raised its dividend 75 percent to $1.40. That is $140 a year for average investor holding 100 shares of City Group stock.

But for Sandy Weill, the CEO of City Group, that is a whopping $27 million that he will bring in annually; $27 million, $16 million more than he received last year without the dividend tax cut. Of course, if you take the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, the numbers start soaring.

Microsoft recently began offering a dividend of 8 cents per share. If you own 100 shares of Microsoft, you get an extra $8 this year. With that you can buy yourself a pretty good cheeseburger and fries in Houston, but what does Bill Gates get? He gets $82 million.

Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities. We have pressing physical needs in our country. We cannot afford to provide adequate prescription drugs for our seniors. We cannot afford to rebuild our damaged bridges and highways. According to the Defense Department, we can afford to bring our troops home for a well-deserved rest and recuperation, but we cannot afford to fly them from their point of arrival in the U.S. to their hometowns.

Over the past 3 years, we have had more than 3 million people out of work desperately looking for jobs. Yet, the central tenets of this administration's job creation program is to make tax cuts permanent, reduce government regulation, and allow companies to contribute less to their pension plans.

Moreover, this administration wants to continue the free trade policies that have, without a doubt, caused undue harm on American workers. To me this plan seems more likely to produce job insecurity than job security.

Mr. Speaker, in 3 straight years, we have had three consecutive tax cuts. These tax cuts have led to the dramatic decrease in jobs and an inconceivable increase in the debt. If tax cuts help an economy, why are we not doing so in Iraq in considering $87 billion on top of the $79 billion from last spring.

I thought a stimulus was supposed to work the other way around. Is it not supposed to increase jobs and decrease

the debt? Yet, every American knows that when your Visa bill gets too high, you are starting to indulge in too many things you cannot afford. To the average American family, getting a hold on our finances means making priorities and tough decisions. Yet, no family forced to cut back on spending would neglect to feed their children in order to pay for a Las Vegas vacation.

Similarly, we should not be cutting crucial government services to pay for an inflated tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this new fiscal year, I hope my colleagues will learn from the fiscal follies of the past. And I hope we can collectively make a New Year's resolution to put the Federal Government's priorities in order, tighten our belts, and get our fiscal houses in order for the sake of our country, but more importantly, for the American people.

Madam Speaker, over the past week there has been a lot of talk in the chambers of Congress about what it means to be patriotic. The Republican leadership would have us believe that patriotism is asking no questions and voicing no concerns. According to them, patriotism is simply handing over $87 billion tied with a bright red bow and a card attached to it that says, here is the money you asked for. Go ahead and spend it how you want.

Madam Speaker, this is not patriotic. This would be neglecting our constitutional duty to oversee how taxpayers' dollars are spent, and it is an obligation that I think we need to take very seriously when considering this supplemental bill. We need to take it seriously not only for the taxpayers but also, more importantly, for our soldiers.

There is not a person in this chamber who would vote against supporting our troops. They are serving bravely and honorably in a faraway land for far longer than anyone expected, and our prayers are with them and their families. Our troops are the true patriots, and the patriotism I see in this debate is demonstrated by those demanding the best for those troops.

Unfortunately, the war plan may have failed to adequately protect our troops. Details may have been overlooked.

Members of Congress returning from Iraq talk about the lack of Kevlar inserts and the need for heavier armor for Humvees. The $87 billion supplemental includes these items. But why were these items not in the $79 billion Congress provided the administration last spring? Kevlar inserts cost $517, $517 for a life-saving device. I ask my colleagues, why was there not enough money for each soldier to have a Kevlar insert? Did we not foresee our soldiers being shot at? Unfortunately, my question is not one that will be answered, or as the chief of the U.S. Central Command said last week, ``I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply.''

Madam Speaker, there is no answer, or at least no answer that could satisfy this Member of Congress. Where was the money to armor up our military vehicles? The Department of Defense thinks we only need $177 million to do it now. Again, why was this not done with the $79 billion appropriated last April? Why was the money not provided to protect our soldiers in these vehicles from gunshots and shrapnel from these roadside bombs?

So, I say to my Republican friends, you will have to excuse us if we insist on exercising our constitutional duty, one that I happen to believe is our patriotic duty, to ensure that we get our priorities straight and protect our young men and women in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In examining patriotism and priorities, I cannot help but wonder if singlehandedly rebuilding Iraq while our country remains in economic downturn is the most patriotic use of this $20 billion in proposed reconstruction funding. I see part of this funding going towards a children's hospital in Iraq

when right now I have 177,000 Texas children who have been dropped from the CHIPS program and they are crowding our emergency rooms because they have no health insurance. I want to help children in Iraq, but should we not be also addressing the problems here at home?

I see this funding going toward building roads and bridges in Iraq when this Congress cannot pass a highway spending bill because we simply do not have enough money to fix our own roads and bridges here at home. This administration has misplaced priorities that come at the expense of the American people.

In the name of free trade, we pushed our manufacturing companies and workers offshore. Our manufacturing sector is struggling to survive, and our economy has lost 3.2 million jobs over the last 3 years. For the second straight year now, more Americans are finding themselves in poverty. Our country has turned into a land of executives and service sector employees, creating an ever-widening gulf between the rich and poor that is extinguishing what is left of our middle class in America.

This administration's fiscal policies have come at the expense of the American people.

Oh, we will hear that we can have it all. They will tell us we can fight a war, rebuild a country, cut taxes, save Social Security, and provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit which is less than half of what they really need. But what they do not tell us is that we cannot pay for it. We are going to incur the largest deficit in this Nation's history, and our children and grandchildren will be paying off the national debt for generations to come.

Tough decisions must be made to get this country back on track, and it takes courage and leadership to make the right decisions for our soldiers, for the American people, and for this country.

Putting the American people first. Now, that is what patriotism is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to clarify that Congress specifically authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to establish a Do Not Call Registry.

During debate last year on the Do Not Call Registry, I had initially preferred that Congress enact even stronger language.

But, in voting for the registry, I never thought that the language we enacted wouldn't be sufficient enough to withstand judicial review.

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken.

They want the power to reduce the number of annoying telemarketing calls that too often interrupt the precious, yet increasingly limited, time that they spend with their families.

The response has been tremendous

I've joined over 50 million Americans who have already signed up for the registry, and it hasn't even gone into effect yet.

The Do Not Call Registry is a popular consumer protection tool that needs to be implemented.

The FTC has moved swiftly on behalf of consumers, and we should do the same.

If the FTC needs this specific authority, then let's pass this bill today, get it to the President and make sure that there is no disruption in the FTC's ambitious timeline to make the Do Not Call Registry a reality for millions of American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise both in support of the conference committee report and thank both the chairman and the ranking member for putting this together.

Obviously, we need more money. I want to raise an issue that some of my colleagues in the Harris County delegation will talk about, including the functioning of the Customs and Border Protection at Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

We have problems with our wait times for our passengers up to 2 hours. It is causing many international passengers to miss their connection. The Houston Chronicle has reported twice on the growing anger of people waiting in line to clear Customs and Border Protection. Missed flights are a major problem because of the wait time. For example, one airline had over 1,000 people miss connections in one day this summer.

We need additional inspectors at Intercontinental Airport, a commitment to maintaining 100 percent the utilization of the number of authorized positions, including overtime for the inspectors who are there to cover the problem.

We have looked at the numbers in other parts of the country at international ports of entry, and we know we are lower than other areas. So we need to make sure that Customs and Border Protection makes that adjustment.

The Members from the Houston area, the nine Members will meet tomorrow again with Customs and Border Protection, and hopefully they will understand that we need to have parity and not the wait time that we are seeing for our the international passengers coming into the Houston Intercontinental Airport.