Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, partial birth abortion is one of the more barbaric procedures of modern times. Doctors confirm it is never medically necessary. Never. So much so that it is not even taught in our nation's medical schools.

Yet more than 3,000 healthy babies are subject to this horrible procedure each year. Too many of them are more than 5 months old in fetal development--able to live outside the womb if just given the same chance as you and me.

Today we have an opportunity to protect our nation's mothers.

Today we can save the lives of precious babies too tiny to save themselves.

Today we ban partial birth abortions and close this grisly chapter in America's history.

Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us the best way to balance the budget and pay down the debt is to get people back to work. Everyone knows when you are unemployed, you are not paying your Federal taxes, you are not paying any Social Security, you are not paying into Medicare, you are not helping States balance their budgets either. The best way to balance a budget and pay down our debt is to get people back to work.

This jobs bill creates more than a million new jobs in America at a time we desperately need them. Every State is going to see new job creation. In our State, we will create, over the next 2 years, 42,000 new jobs each year.

That is equivalent of building two new Pentagons in our State and filling it with new Texas workers every year. That is real jobs.

Our belief in the President's jobs bill is if we help people afford the cost of raising children, if we stop penalizing people for being married so they have more money to go to the mall, more money to buy new tires, it is good for the economy. We believe if you help small businesses buy that new piece of equipment and hire that new worker, and say yes to that new sales force, it is good for the economy. We are convinced if we help people rebuild their retirement nest egg, to keep more of what they are saving for, that is good for the economy.

We do not believe that spending more is the answer. We do not think it helps the economy to buy more $300 hammers, to spend millions of dollars helping more salmon swim upstream, and we do not believe that you need to create the hundredth new program to duplicate the 99 that are already in existence.

We believe creating jobs, getting people back to work is going to balance this budget, pay down this deficit and get this economy going. America creates jobs; Washington gets in the way of it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight, like many others, proud of our colleague and chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Larry Combest. They say that you make a living by what you get but you make a life by what you give, and by that measure Larry Combest has enjoyed a very rich life. He has given back so much to his community, to our State of Texas, and, of course, to the Nation he loves so much.

At times like this it is tempting, I think, to focus on his achievements because there are so many ways, so many ways he has made a difference for the better in this country. But I think you need to be most impressed by Larry Combest's attributes, his qualities as a man.

He has so much integrity, remarkable amount of integrity. He is so thoughtful about the issues. He does his homework so much. He is like the rural community he represents, incredibly hard working. His advice truly is honest. And he not only has principles and values, he lives his principles and he lives his values each day. He is a wonderful role model for younger Members of Congress, for his colleagues, his peers, for all who have worked with him. He is just a remarkable man.

And as much as we are going to miss him, the fact is we are overjoyed that he and Sharon will be sharing their time together. They have given so much back to America. We are anxious to give them time together. God bless.

Mr. Speaker, common sense tells you the best thing we can do to balance the budget and pay down our debt is to get people back to work, because when you are not working, you are not paying Federal taxes, you are not paying into Social Security, you are not helping States balance their budget.

In my home State of Texas, the President's job bill will create 42,000 new jobs each year. That is the equivalent of taking the Pentagon, the world's largest office building, building it in Texas and filling it each and every year with new Texas workers. This is real jobs at a time when we need it the most. And with so many new jobs waiting to occur, we ought not wait another day to get this to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes 127, 128, and 129 earlier today. I was in a meeting with the five Central American presidents in town today to discuss the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three bills: the Conference Report on S. 151, the PROTECT Act; H. Con. Res. 141, expressing the sense of the Congress that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 should be fundamentally reformed to be fairer, simpler, and less costly and to encourage economic growth, individual liberty, and investment in American jobs; and H. Res. 165, expressing support for a renewed effort to find a peaceful, just, and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Let me address my remarks toward the teacher loophole portion of this, because this is what we are discussing the most.

I admire teachers. They are hardworking and incredibly dedicated, as we all know. They are my friends, my sister-in-law, and my next-door neighbor, literally. But keeping open the Texas teacher loophole is terribly unfair.

The loophole practice was first reported to the fraud hotline of Social Security a few years ago. A subsequent investigation by the General Accounting Office followed and, upon their finding that millions of dollars were being siphoned from Social Security, the recommendation was made to Congress to close it. The Senate voted 99 to 0 to close it. But that is why we are here today in the House, to preserve the integrity of Social Security.

This is how the loophole works in Texas, in my State. Teachers in the State retirement system do not pay into Social Security. They have opted out. They pay instead into a substitute retirement plan, the teacher retirement system of Texas. As they near retirement, a Texas teacher resigns from her school district. She pays then another school district that is in Social Security; she pays them between $200 and $500 to work for them 1 day, in the cafeteria, doing maintenance, or as a clerical aid. Typically, for that 1 day of work, the teacher contributes $3 into Social Security and thanks to the loophole, collects nearly $100,000 in Social Security benefits over her retirement. That is $3 into Social Security, $100,000 taken from Social Security. This is terribly unfair. It is unfair to all of the teachers in other States who have no loophole. It is unfair to all the working families in Texas, in America, who have no loophole, including our soldiers overseas; and it is certainly unfair to our elderly who, even if we close the loophole today, will see $450 million drained from their Social Security Trust Fund.

On the Web site for the Texas Federation of Teachers, their President, John Cole, describes the loophole as a trick and proudly proclaims the gimmick is perfectly legal. The gimmick is perfectly legal.

Well, the gimmick may be legal, but is it right? Virtually no other worker in Texas or America can take a job in a school cafeteria for a day, contribute $3 into Social Security, and walk away with nearly $100,000 more than their next-door neighbor. How do we justify this? We would not allow someone to spend 1 day as a substitute teacher and take home $100,000 in teacher retirement, so why would we allow a teacher to work 1 day in Social Security and take home $100,000 they did not earn?

Alarmingly, this 25-year-old obscure loophole just recently discovered is now being institutionalized. In Texas, in my home State, teachers groups regularly hold retirement seminars to instruct their members on how to take advantage of the loophole. Some school districts make as much as $280,000 a year. That is a quarter of a million dollars a year, charging fees to teachers to work for them for just a day. During the General Accounting Office investigation, they even discovered one Texas university has gone so far as to regularly schedule 5 days per year where university professors can work their last day as a janitor under Social Security, contribute $3, and receive an extra $100,000. That is $100,000 that university professors in other States cannot earn, because they do not have a loophole. And it is $100,000 the janitor they worked alongside of cannot earn either, because they do not have a loophole.

We are not going to create two classes of citizens in America, those who have loopholes and those who do not. Congress has a clear choice. We can keep open this lucrative loophole for a few that is draining $450 million from everyone else's Social Security, or we can stand up for our seniors, stand up for our elderly, stand up for the 99 percent of America's workers who are playing by the fair rules.

If we insist on keeping this loophole open, Congress, I think, has forfeited any future credibility to claiming to protect Social Security for our seniors. We will rightly be labeled hypocrites.

What can we do to help our teachers, but still be fair to America? The question has been raised today, and it is a fair one. I am convinced the answer lies in repeal or at least modification of the windfall elimination provision, which docks workers who have earned both the Social Security retirement and the government pension. I think the principle we should be applying is this: if you have earned two pensions, you should receive two pensions.

I have asked the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to hold hearings on the windfall provision; and he has agreed. I appreciate his willingness to promptly study the impact and fairness of the windfall provision as it relates to today's retirees.

I think we will find when we do study it, and I am in total agreement with

our teachers on this, that the windfall makes it much more difficult to recruit into teaching the professionals who have had other careers. I think it penalizes educators who held a second job in order to make ends meet. Teachers tell me this would go a long way towards helping them. And best of all, it is not a gimmick. It is fair for them, and it is fair to the rest of America.

I urge the House to pass H.R. 743 without amendment. We must not allow our precious Social Security to be drained away; and most importantly, we cannot create two classes of citizens in America, those who have loopholes and those who do not.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of misinformation being spoken today. This has nothing to do with our soldiers overseas, because they do not have a loophole; or our firefighters or police officers, because they do not have a loophole. This does have a lot to do with the widows in America who do not have a loophole and are losing $450 million of their Social Security because one group has a loophole that no one else in America has.

Let us look at the average family in Texas because we have heard a lot of these examples. This is where the husband has made $1,000 a year as his retirement and the wife's retirement is $700. When he passes away, what happens? For almost everyone in America where both people work in Social Security, that benefit is $1,000. For other families that work and have a government pension, like our firefighters and policeman, or Federal workers, for example, who paid into their own private plan, they keep more, $1,233. They get more than most families in America.

But look at our Texas teacher. Because we have a loophole where they can go to work 1 day in Social Security and contribute $3 and collect over $100,000 more, they pull down $1,700 a month for widow's benefits that no one else in America can achieve. Not other teachers in other States, not the elderly in other States, no one in America. And because of this, this is draining not just $450 million now, but if we keep this loophole open, we will do more and more damage to everyone else in America who pays into Social Security.

Let me make a final point about this. Everyone's Social Security is offset. Members have what is called a dual-entitlement offset. That is 100 percent. Government workers is less, only 66 percent, two-thirds. Texas teachers, no offset whatsoever, so they receive many more benefits than the next-door neighbor who works hard, than Texas nurses, store clerks, the woman who takes care of our elderly in nursing homes, they do not have a loophole.

We are not going to have an America where there are two classes of citizens, those who have loopholes in Social Security and those who do not. This is about protecting the integrity of our Social Security system for every generation. If we do not close this loophole, we have lost all claim to protecting Social Security for the future.

Mr. Speaker, others may not like the facts either. My younger brother has been deployed as an Army medic in the 67th Brigade. He will be watching out for the 4th Infantry Division in the Persian Gulf, his second tour of duty. He does not have a loophole. He cannot work 1 day and collect $100,000. Yes, he has an offset like the rest of America has an offset. When we hear this said no one else has an offset, it is absolutely untrue. What we are trying to defend here is some of America that has a loophole and all the rest of us, firefighters, widows, the elderly have no loophole. We are protecting the security of Social Security.

Mr. Chairman, we are at war, and I think most taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to win a war. We are in a recession as well, and taxpayers understand you spend what it takes to keep people in their jobs and to create new jobs for those who have lost them. But what taxpayers do not understand and will not accept is when we use it either to go on a spending spree that keeps us from balancing the budget, or keeps us from paying down our debt, or keeps us sending pork home to America and taking it out of their tax dollars.

This budget supports a strong national defense, promotes new jobs in a stronger economy, but it holds the line on spending. It says, let us tighten our belts in Washington; let us start to balance the budgets sooner than other budgets, and let us get people back to work.

This budget also includes a Federal sunset act, an encouragement for Congress to pass a bill to balance obsolete agencies, to eliminate duplication among our agencies, and to begin asking agencies to put up or shut up; to produce, to succeed, to support our taxpayers. What we are trying to do is conserve our dollars, identify wasteful spending within our agencies and within our programs so that we have enough dollars for a secure America, for health care, for education, and to send dollars back home.

Mr. Chairman, I support this budget. It makes a lot of sense, and perhaps because it makes sense is why it is getting so much resistance here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) on this issue and many other issues. He is a colleague of mine on the House Committee on Ways and Means. He plays a crucial role on a number of issues from tax reform to preserving Social Security and Medicare to trying and open up new markets around the world. But it is his, I think, vision on national security and this war on terrorism that prompted me to be here tonight. I appreciate him allowing me to be part of this program on an evening that I think history will mark as a very important next step in the war on terrorism.

Recently, I had the privilege of attending two rallies for America back in Texas, in my home region. The first one a couple of weeks ago was coordinated by KPRC radio in Houston. Two of the on-air commentators, Chris Baker and Pat Gray, put together a rally just on a week's notice, a mere week's notice, just basically invited the community to come together and support our troops and support this country. It was a remarkable rally. It was a cold and dreary day, not one that attracts a lot of people naturally; but yet in this plaza in downtown Houston there were between 8 and 10,000 Americans there to show their support for this President and support our troops or military men and women. And then last weekend in Woodland, Texas, where I live, not three blocks from where Cathy and I live with our two young boys, we had a rally for America as well. This one was organized by Dr. K.P. Reddy, who is an immigrant from India, a legal immigrant who came here with very little money in his pocket but a desire to live the American dream.

He organized this rally basically to remind America what a remarkable Nation we live in and what remarkable freedoms and blessings we possess. And both of these rallies were to me remarkable because they were just a grass roots outpouring of people who understand the importance of our security to our families and to our Nation.

I had a chance to talk to the groups at both of these rallies and here are the thoughts I shared with them: back home 1,200 miles from here in Washington, D.C., back home in College Station, Texas, is the George Bush Presidential Library Museum. Captured in these magnificent engraved letters high on the granite walls on the museum where each afternoon if you drive past, the beautiful Brazos Valley sun captures these words, and I think they are very appropriate to our time in our Nation. And the words say, ``Let every generation understand the blessings and burdens of freedom. Let them say we stood where duty required us to stand.''

As we stand today on the eve of liberating Iraq and striking another blow against international terrorism, thousands of our young men and women stand watch on foreign soil. Our soldiers are on patrol in Bosnia-Hersgovenia, Kosovo and Macedonia. They are hunting al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and the Philippines. They are on patrols in the skies of Iraq and on the seas throughout the world. They are unloading the equipment near Turkey and training in the deserts of Kuwait. These patriots and their families are suffering hardships and making great sacrifices at this Nation's behest.

There is a good chance in the next few hours that we will ask even more of them. Another generation of Americans is standing where duty requires them to stand, and we are standing with them. For all our faults, America remains a good, good country. We did not deserve the attacks of September 11, nor the celebrations that followed in some parts of the world. And as happens in times of crisis, 9/11 brought out the best in America. We sensed a Nation turning back toward what is truly important, our faith, our families and our precious freedom. We saw it in the thousand flags flying, in overflowing hearts and in overflowing churches.

You may recall in his September 20 speech to the Nation, to the joint session of Congress, President Bush spoke for all of us then when he vowed that America would not rest until we had rooted out terrorism around the world. He said that countries harboring terrorists would be treated as terrorist nations themselves; that if you financed terrorists, if you trained terrorists, if you provided them safe harbor in your country, that you would be treated as a terrorist nation yourself. He cautioned wisely that the coming war would be a long one, to be measured in years rather than months.

As we have been reminded repeatedly by the recent al Qaeda attacks in Bali and Kenya, by the audiotape of bin Laden and his second in command predicting more terrorist attacks in America, as we have been reminded in the announcement that American intelligence have quietly thwarted more than 100 separate terrorist efforts, the question is not if America will be attacked again at home, but when and by whom. Instead of crashing airplanes into our downtown buildings, the terrorists of the future may well turn to dangerous chemical and biological weapons, suicide bombers, attempts to poison our air and water, disrupt our energy supply, our electronic commerce, and destroy our economy and the jobs that we and our neighbors rely upon. They will direct these weapons of terrible destruction toward America, because standing as the world's lone superpower also means standing as the world's biggest target. Despite what Hollywood and others are trying so desperately to sell to you, our homeland, our communities, our schools, our neighborhoods and millions of American lives remain at risk as we speak tonight.

We are going to fight this war on terrorism one way or another, either overseas at its source or here at home when it lands right on top of our neighborhoods. We choose overseas, at terrorism's source.

Personally I can tell you that casting a vote for war is the most difficult vote you ever cast. I have a younger brother Matt, who is a medic in the Army. He was deployed to Desert Storm a decade ago. Since then, he and his wife have added two young children to their family, Mattie and Caitland. He recently got word he is headed back to Turkey. Any time you cast a vote that will send your family to war, any time you cast a vote to send anyone's family, anyone's son or daughter, to a war they may not return from, you think hard

and you pray hard over it. Yet I know it was the right vote to cast, and Matt feels even more strongly than me.

I am certain because the first responsibility of our government is to defend American citizens. It is not the United Nations' responsibility, it is not France's nor Germany's. It is ours. The Afghanistan campaign was certainly the first step in the war on terrorism, but does anyone believe all terrorism begins and ends in Afghanistan? Does anyone believe there is only one terrorist, Osama bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe Saddam Hussein has disarmed? Of course not.

By any measure, Saddam Hussein presents a grave threat to the safety, the security and the well-being of Americans here at home. Disarming Iraq and its support for state-sponsored terrorism is the next logical step to secure peace for our families and the world.

I served as a member of the House International Relations Committee for a number of years. Serving on that committee, it became clear to me that terrorism expands according to our willingness to tolerate it. Terrorism expands according to our willingness to accept it. For too long the world has turned a blind eye to terrorism. We have been afraid to confront it. Terrorism has grown strong because the actions of our world leaders never really matched their tough words.

That is over now. That all changed September 11. That all changed with President Bush as our Commander in Chief, and that all changed with a Nation that supports him. For the sake of our community and our security, we have to mean what we say. And for the sake of our children's future, we must follow through on our vow to end terrorism.

We know from experience that America's security at home depends upon our strength in the world. The value of our military to deter attacks and maintain peace depends in great measure on the value of our word. If the United Nations fails, and unfortunately they have as of tonight, although President Bush has bent over backwards to reach a diplomatic solution, the bottom line is you cannot give someone a backbone. They have to have one themselves. I think the exercise with the United Nations in which we tried so hard proves what global security experts have long suspected. Many nations in the world want terrorism to end, but few want the responsibility of actually doing it. If Saddam Hussein chooses to continue to arm himself and harbor terrorists, then America must act. Words alone are not enough. And when we send U.S. troops overseas, it must be to win and to return home as planned.

President George Washington said, there is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy. We know the enemy. We know the difficulty. We know the duty, and we know the strength of America's military men and women, and we will not undermine them here at home. Despite what some believe, as Americans our rush is not for war, it is for peace, a secure peace, so that back in Texas where I live and in communities across America, when our families leave home each morning, they return home safely to us that night. That is not too much to ask. As the United States has shown in every world war, we are fighting not just for our Nation, but for a world free of fear, free from the horrors that fill our television screens too often, free from the threat of weapons of mass destruction which grow and grow each day, free from all that terrorism spawns.

If you think war is expensive, try living in terror. How much would we pay, how much would we give to have prevented the attacks of 9/11? To those who protest the war, I respectfully ask, was September 11 not enough? Was not September 11 enough to convince you this is not a game? This is not politics as usual. This is not Vietnam. This is like no other war. This is the prospect of a holocaust on our shores, on America's shores, among our communities, killing our families, injuring our neighbors, destroying our way of life for generations to come. And all the made-for-media protests, all the petitions and the slick TV ads in the world will not stop the next terrorists from attacking innocent Americans here on our shores again.

By standing tall, by standing firm, I believe President Bush has demonstrated what we all know in our hearts. Leadership is never easy, nor is it always popular, which is why we are so grateful for the nations and the leaders who stand with us, more than 30 of them, the third largest coalition in a century, people who are willing to say to international terrorism, enough. Enough. I am convinced, looking back, if more had stood with us, if France and Germany had put world security ahead of their shortsighted political ambitions, that we may well have disarmed Iraq and exiled Saddam Hussein without a shot being fired. Sadly, we will never know.

In some ways, I do not really worry about those in the free world who question the war. I worry about those in the world of terrorism who question the resolve of the American people. As you may recall, within days after the attacks of September 11, many around the world predicted that America would not have the heart nor the attention span nor the fortitude to mean what we say. They will soon learn they are wrong. No one knows better than Americans that if a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom. The irony of it is that if it is comfort or it is money that it values more, it will lose that, too.

I have great faith in the American people. We will stand with President Bush. We will stand with our American military. We will stand where duty requires us to stand.

On the issue of defending America and disarming Saddam Hussein, people often ask, why Iraq and why now? To that, let me yield back to my colleague from Colorado, who speaks so eloquently about the need to defend our America and to secure peace throughout the world.

I appreciate your leadership, and I think you have really concluded on the right note at the right time.

We are facing history in a war that is so unique. It is unlike any other. I think what some people do not understand is that the international community has ranked those nations around the world who are the champions of state-sponsored terrorism, and have for many years. Of those countries, Iraq has topped that list for many, many years. Their ability and willingness to allow training of terrorists to occur, to allow financing of terrorists to occur, to allow safe haven and transit and medical treatment to those terrorists around the world all place them in a unique situation.

I will tell you that this past weekend we remembered the victims of Saddam Hussein's terrible chemical weapons attack on the people of Halabja, a city in northern Iraq, and other village attacks in the Al- Anfal campaign.

On March 6, 1988, 15 years ago, the Iraqi Air Force dropped a devastating mix of mustard and nerve gas on citizens in this city. Five thousand of Hussein's own people were killed immediately at his hand, several thousand died later, and an estimated 10,000 people were maimed and still are suffering the effects of this attack. If you wonder if this gentleman is capable of launching an attack, if not today, in the future as he grows stronger, all we need to do is look at his attack on his own people.

With this, I will conclude. I understand that the President's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, has just announced the disarmament of Iraq has begun. The President will address the Nation at 10:15.

I believe we are at this moment in time reflecting on, in the words on the wall of the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, ``Let every generation understand the blessings and burdens of freedom. Let them say we stood where duty required us to stand.''

Tonight, under the President's leadership, yet again we will stand where duty requires us to stand.

Mr. Speaker, we are right to be concerned about our teachers. They are overworked. They are underpaid. We are concerned about them. I think had it not been for study over the last year or so, I would be giving the exact same speech today as my Democratic colleagues from Texas because we are all concerned. It turns out this is not exactly the case I thought it was.

Recently we held a hearing on this legislation. We wanted to hear from our Texas teachers, so we requested the chairman invite our Texas State Teachers Association, our Texas Federation of Teachers and the Association of Texas Professional Educators to testify. Unfortunately, they were not able to because of various reasons, the snow being one of them, but we submitted their testimony on their behalf and urged members of the subcommittee to study it.

During the hearing, it was shown that teachers in government pensions are not being singled out. They are not. The government pension offset affects more than just teachers. It affects more than 5 million people in all sorts of State, local and Federal Government pensions who do not pay into Social Security. This is important to know because a lot of my teachers feel like they are being targeted, being singled out.

My main concern during the hearing that I expressed that my teachers are so upset about, that a widower who has worked a lifetime to earn their government pension, like a Texas teacher, will keep less of their deceased spouse's Social Security than a widower who has worked and paid into Social Security. The Social Security Administration conclusively proved this is not the case. It turns out it is just the opposite.

Teachers in TRS are able to keep the same, or more, of their spouse's Social Security benefits than other widowers who have worked, like nurses or waitresses. That is because the government pension offset law reduces their husband's or their deceased spouse's Social Security by two-thirds of their pension. But for other widowers, for waitresses, nurses and others who paid into Social Security, their husband's benefits are reduced even more, 100 percent of their own benefit.

What I think confuses teachers and many is that if someone has not worked, they have worked inside the home all their life, have not earned Social Security, they keep all of their husband's or their deceased spouses's benefits because they depend upon it more. Social Security is extremely complicated. There is a great deal of misinformation going around the Internet and by well-meaning individuals and organizations these days.

What frustrates me most is that teachers were not told about this situation years ago. They feel they have paid into Social Security for years and they do not get the help when they need it the most. It would have been so much better if this would have been reformed years ago, where you put aside your own contribution to Social Security into a traditional retirement account, where that money grew for you over the years, you could take it with you, it was yours to own and you would not be surprised by some government formula done 20 years ago. That is where we need to head.

How we can help teachers today and others I think is to focus on the windfall elimination provision. It sounds complicated, but the principle is, for me, if you have worked hard and paid into Social Security and you have worked hard and paid into a government pension, you should receive more of both. I am thinking here of teachers who have contributed their hard-earned pay into Social Security through a second job, teachers who have contributed to Social Security in another State before moving to Texas or Georgia, thinking of future teachers who already have a career, we would like to get them into the classroom to help but they are afraid of losing their retirement benefits. I believe the best and the most timely solution to help these people, these teachers, and others who have earned two pensions, is to modernize the windfall elimination provision to make it more fair.

I have asked our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), to hold hearings on the windfall elimination provision. This is where I think we can take a formula that is outdated, I think a bit arbitrary, and focus on the principles if you have paid into Social Security and you have paid into your government pension, that you keep more of the Social Security that you have paid into.

Mr. Speaker, clearing up a couple of misconceptions there, I would love to be able to tell my Texas teachers, whom I love, what they want to hear. But I respect them too much to do that. I want to tell them the truth. The fact of the matter is, this was not snuck in. This was passed in the Senate last session. And this Republican House, with Texas lawmakers from both sides said, let us discuss this in open debate and make sure it is the right way, which is exactly what we are doing. Both parties have had a chance to work on this issue since 1983. We have not come up with a solution yet. We are working to do that.

Finally, I want our Texas teachers to be treated fairly. I want our Texas waitresses and nurses and other moms to be treated fairly, too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2003 which we are debating right now. The goal of the legislation is to make U.S. manufacturers, our American companies, more competitive, and strengthen the jobs of the workers that they employ. We do this by reducing or eliminating some of the import duties on materials and products used in production of goods and services here in America.

I am especially pleased that the bill contains legislation that I have authored in the past to change duty drawback and other trade laws in order to make the way they work less complicated and much easier to administer, both by the businesses here in the country and by our U.S. Customs Service. The goal of that and I think the result of that is that we will ease some of the regulatory burdens and some of the paperwork burdens imposed currently on U.S. companies.

The way duty drawback works is that if you are an American company and

you bring a product in from overseas in order to manufacture and then sell it back outside the country, if you bring it into the country, we charge you a duty, say, of $10 on this widget.

When you manufacture it yourself, a similar product, or put it into yours and sell it back outside the country, you get a refund on that duty, so that you are competitive and your products do not cost too much more, or you are at least competitive with foreign companies when you are selling product outside this Nation.

Drawback levels the playing fields, allows U.S. companies to remain competitive, strengthens jobs and overall helps us compete in a world where competition is very fierce.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed roll call votes 18 and 19 on February 5, 2003. 1 was on my way to attend the funeral for a family member who passed away earlier in the week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Recommit H.J. Res. 18 and voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 51, expressing the House of Representatives condolences to the families and crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia.