Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Dallas Senior CPL Verna L. Durden for her years of service and commitment to the Dallas community as a Dallas Police officer.

CPL Verna L. Durden, who retired last month after 36 years of dedicated service, began her career with the Dallas Police Department during an evolving era. She became the second African American woman on the Dallas Police force in 1972, a time period when women on the force were still required to wear dresses and high heels. In 1979, she swore in Police Chief Glen D. King, becoming the first woman in the nation to perform this important duty. During her 36-year tenure, CPL Verna Durden swore in over 4,000 Dallas police officers, earned 68 commendations, and received four certificates of merit.

Corporal Durden, who has fought her own personal battle with cancer, plans to continue serving her community through volunteer work with the American Cancer Society. CPL Verna Durden's personal qualities and pioneering career has set an example for young women throughout the Dallas community to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I honor CPL Verna L. Durden for her years of commitment and continuing contributions to the Dallas community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Ron Anderson, president and chief executive officer of Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas, Texas, for receiving the American Hospital Association's 2004 Award of Honor.

During his tenure with Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Dr. Anderson has displayed outstanding leadership capabilities through his exemplary efforts to serve the health care needs of a densely populated city. As a result of Dr. Anderson's dedication and strong commitment to improving health policies and social initiatives, Parkland Hospital has gained the respect and praise as a national model for all public hospitals around the country.

As a devoted doctor, Dr. Anderson strives to improve the quality of care every patient receives when they go to Parkland Hospital. Through his tireless efforts to revolutionize Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and his passion for medicine, Dr. Anderson is well deserving of the American Hospital Association's 2004 Award of Honor. He deserves special recognition and praise for his direction and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Dr. Anderson on his prestigious award and his significant accomplishment. Parkland Health & Hospital System in Dallas has greatly benefited from the dedication and leadership skills Dr. Anderson has shown as president and CEO. I know my colleagues will join me today in honoring Dr. Anderson, as we wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Lyndon ``Lady Bird'' Johnson, Texas' first First Lady, who has impacted the lives of many with her selfless contributions.

Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson has created a living legacy through her tireless efforts throughout her lifetime. During her years in the White House, Mrs. Johnson was an important advisor to her husband, and a passionate advocate for numerous causes. She served as honorary chairman of the National Head Start Program. She also devoted her time as First Lady advancing the cause of women in government, holding special luncheons for women of achievement, and suggesting women for top official posts.

While in Washington, she promoted the growth and protection of the country's national parks, and the planting of wildflowers on the nation's highways. Upon returning to Texas, she established the National Wildflower Research Center in Austin. In 1998, its name was changed to ``The Lady Bird Johnson

Wildflower Research Center,'' as a tribute to her ardent devotion to the preservation of the nation's wildlife. In honor of her many contributions to society Mrs. Johnson has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award from the United States.

Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson is soon to be honored by the Bluebonnet Trails Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center for her assistance in the public health sector. Her passionate support for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid, and the Community Health Centers Act of 1965 created a solid foundation for our nation's public health system.

Mr. Speaker, I honor Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson for her years of commitment and continuing contributions to people, places and beliefs of this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the late Viola Pitts, an African American leader who made a tremendous impact in the lives of many throughout the North Texas community.

Mrs. Viola Pitts, a native born Texan, spent the vast majority of her life in the heart of Como, a historically black neighborhood in west Fort Worth. Her vigorous efforts to strengthen the voter turn out amongst African Americans, earned her the title of ``unofficial mayor of Como.'' Mrs. Pitts' determination, tenacity and honesty earned her the respect of many top elected public officials in North Texas.

Mrs. Pitts, who was never afraid to confront an issue, worked tirelessly to ensure that the Como community received proper funding for their community center, elementary school, and neighborhood streets. Her selfless contribution to the Como area were recognized and honored in 2000, when Tarrant County officials renamed the new medical clinic to JPS Health Center--Viola M. Pitts/Como.

Mrs. Viola Pitts was truly a civic minded individual who helped make the Fort Worth community a better place to live by simply being active and involved. Hopefully, through her memory we can all continue to draw on these same personal qualities that so many of us have come to respect and admire.

Mr. Speaker, I honor Mrs. Viola Pitts for her lifelong contributions and commitment to the residents of the Fort Worth community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it has been over 2\1/2\ years since terrorists commandeered four airplanes and killed 3,000 people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The events of September 11, 2001, made it abundantly clear that the United States is not immune from attack. But I am deeply concerned that for most Members of the House that day did not make a deep enough impression about what might happen if this institution or its Members were successfully targeted by terrorists or other enemies of our democracy. United Flight 93 was headed here. Had it not been for the brave souls on that plane who fought the terrorists who took over their flight, this very building could have been destroyed. Had Flight 93 not been taken down in the field in Pennsylvania, a

large number of Members might have been killed.

On September 11, 2001, we did not have a procedure in place to reconstitute this body. And on April 22, 2004, we still lack such a plan. I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us today does not give us a viable plan. And the manner in which this bill is being brought to the floor does a disservice to the very serious issue of continuity of government.

The very fact that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has chosen to push this remedy to the exclusion of any other idea shows that the leadership of this House has chosen to make this a partisan issue. And the stability of our government and its institutions should not now, or ever, become a partisan issue.

In the spring of 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I co-chaired a bipartisan working group that sought to examine the issues in play. No Member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath of office without first having been elected by the people.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) will have time. I need to finish my statement, but then I will be glad to yield.

Given that no Member in the history of this body has ever taken the oath of office without first having been elected by the people, the group focused on what might have been done within the law or with statutory amendments to replenish the House in the event of a catastrophe.

We had on a bipartisan basis serious and thoughtful discussions. We made modest but important changes to the rules of House that aid the Speaker in the event of a catastrophe. We passed a resolution that called on the States to put into place procedures by which expedited elections might be conducted in the event that a large number of Members are killed.

But the members of the working group grappled with much larger issues, that of incapacitation, if it would be possible to skirt the constitutional requirements for election through statutory changes, the judicial review of decisions made by a House composed of only a few Members.

We soon realized that those Members as well as many others needed to be addressed by the committees of jurisdiction. We had high hopes of a thoughtful, serious, nonpartisan debate and serious issues. What we got instead was a poorly thought out and wholly inadequate response to the questions we raised 2 years ago.

I know the Chair of the committee will want to seek recognition in a moment, and I will acknowledge that the Chair said yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary will mark up a constitutional amendment in the immediate future, and for that we are very grateful. Unfortunately, that amendment is not here on the floor, and we do not know when that amendment will actually have the opportunity to be voted on upon the floor.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the issue is of serious magnitude. While the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has indicated he will mark up a constitutional amendment, we have no assurance that that amendment will be considered on the floor by this body in a timely manner this year.

Let me, if I may, address comments not just to the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, but to all the Members of this House. The reason that some of us and many of us feel that this legislative approach is inadequate, and that a constitutional approach is the only one that can serve this country, is that if a number of Members were killed in a common disaster, the period of time that would pass before this House could be reconstituted under the bill that is being voted on today is unacceptable. We would find ourselves without a functioning Congress perhaps for months under this bill.

Now, there is an historical anomaly in our Constitution that provides that Members of the Senate when they die can be replaced by an appointment of a Governor, and there is no such procedure in the Constitution for Members of the House. The reason for, the gentleman will have plenty of time, the reason for this historical anomaly is that when the Constitution was originally drafted, Members of the Senate were chosen by appointment. They were appointed by their State legislatures, and when we went from an appointed Senate to direct election of the Senate, the power of Governors to replace Senators was continued.

There was no such provision for Members of the House. That does not mean that in this 21st century today that there should not be such a procedure. The fear is that if a large number of Members were to be killed in a common disaster, that the Congress could not function in a timely manner when the country would most need a Congress.

Now, there is a second unfortunate aspect of current law. Under current law, a quorum of the House of Representatives is a majority of those Members living and sworn into office, sworn and living, so that if, of the 435 Members of the House, if, for sake of argument, 400 were to be killed in a common disaster, and 5 survived because they were not present in the Chamber at the time of the disaster or for whatever reason, 3 Members of those remaining 5 would constitute a quorum. And you could say, well, then the Congress could continue to function with those 5 Members.

The question that I would pose is would decisions made by three individuals be respected by the country at a time of crisis? We have to provide for continuity in our government, and for us to pretend that a terrible disaster like this could never happen, and we all hope that it never happens and trust that it never happens, but for us to pretend that it could not happen, and that if it did happen, oh, we would have a leisurely pace of months to replace Congress during that time does a disservice to our form of government and to the people that we represent.

Now, there are disputes and concerns on the type of constitutional amendments, on how you provide for the prompt, orderly replacements of Members. People have different views on that. Some people feel that the Governor should be able to appoint their replacements just as the Governor can appoint a Senator. Others feel that the Members in advance should be able to put a list, put together a list and designate who their successor would be, or perhaps have a list and the Governor chooses from that list. There are a lot of provisions that could be considered.

What we are saying is that this House now, not a couple of months from now or a couple of years from now, should face up to this hard decision, should consider a constitutional amendment on this issue, submit it to the people so that if, God forbid, there

were a disaster in which all or substantially all the Members of the House were killed in a terrorist attack, that our government would go on. If we do not do this, then we will cede total power and authority to the executive branch, if there is an executive branch at the end of a common disaster, and presumably there would be in some form, and there would be no functioning legislative branch for a period of months.

That is why many of us, and I will complete my statement, the other side has plenty of time to make their points, that is why many of us feel this legislation is inadequate and is a poorly thought out response to a situation that, while we hope never happens, could put this country and our form of government in serious jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this is as serious a matter as we could have before the House. We run the risk of becoming a herd of ostriches in putting our heads in the sand.

This is not the 18th century. This is not the 19th century. It is not even the 20th century anymore. It is the 21st century. No one in the 18th century or the 19th century could have contemplated the type of terrorist act that could potentially eliminate at one time all or virtually all the elected Members of this House. We hope that never occurs, but for us to ignore the possibility that it could occur in the 21st century does a great disservice to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the matter we are about to consider today, how to keep the House of Representatives functioning in the event of catastrophe, is one of the most serious and important issues we will ever consider.

When I cochaired the Continuity of Congress Working Group in 2002, Members from both parties took a nonpartisan approach to the issue and kept an open mind as to how we could achieve a solution.

How times have changed. The open-minded, nonpartisan spirit we had when we began discussing this issue has completely disappeared. The restrictive rule that the Committee on Rules reported out last night has completely convinced me that this House is now putting partisanship ahead of its institutional duties.

Mr. Speaker, a number of very intelligent people have devoted a lot of time and effort considering this question. I think it is a tragedy that their ideas will not be debated today. That is why I am urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes H.R. 2844, it will take up the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), H.J. Res. 83, under a comprehensive and thorough debate process that this issue deserves. The Baird bill would amend the Constitution to provide for an emergency procedure to keep the House of Representatives working should a significant majority of this House be killed or incapacitated. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I would like to point out that in the Committee on Rules, and I understand Members want to revise and extend their remarks on the rule and submit all kinds of material, but I would point out when this rule was being considered by the committee, we asked for an additional hour of debate on the bill itself and we were denied that by a rollcall vote. That vote was Committee on Rules record vote No. 247, three ``yeses'' and six ``noes.''

I will not object to Members being able to revise and extend their remarks, but I wish we had provided for additional debate time on this very important piece of legislation. That was a reasonable proposal that was made in the Committee on Rules and was rejected by the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, and pay my respects to the innocent people who died at the brutal hand of the Holocaust.

An anniversary like this is often filled with mixed messages of hope and sorrow, pain and promise. While these words contradict each other on paper, they live together in our hearts and minds on a day like today.

The emotions of sorrow and pain are easy to feel. By the time World War lI was finished, 6 million Jews died for no reason. Countless families had been torn apart, Europe was virtually demolished, and the horrors of the Nazi regime were scarred into the minds of the entire civilized world. Looking at this tragedy, it is easy to see only bad things. It is easy to view the worst in people.

But, it was difficult, impossible in fact, to stop the world from denouncing these atrocities, and saying, ``Never Again.'' Human-kind had the hope and promise to try to make this world better--to try to make this world more understanding and open.

The world has come a long way since the darkness of the 30's and 40's. In the almost 60 years since the Holocaust ended, we have become a more open and understanding society. But, our quest for a better world is constantly battling hate, discrimination and anti-Semitism.

We all know the violence that is carried out by those who hate. But, I also know that if our ancestors could get through World War II and the Holocaust, we can survive our own battle against hate and terror, and make the world safer for our children.

Mr. Speaker, Yom Hashoah serves as a memorial to those who both survived and lost their lives from the Holocaust. Let it also be a day to reaffirm our commitment to the values that won . . . love, honor and respect.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I attended the 10th Annual Awards Luncheon of the Senior Source, formerly known as Senior Citizens of Greater Dallas. At that event, the Senior Source presented its Spirit of Generations Award to Julie and Jim Turner, two highly respected citizens of Dallas.

Jim Turner, an internationally recognized leader in the soft drink industry, is CEO/President of the Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group in Dallas. Over the years, Jim Turner and his company have been good corporate citizens and have made many contributions to the betterment of Dallas.

I would like to insert in the Record at this point the description of Julie and Jim Turner that appeared in the program marking the occasion of the presentation of the Generations Award.

Julie and Jim Turner

Julie and Jim Turner work tirelessly to improve the well

being of the community in which they live and conduct

business. Throughout their 35 years of marriage, they have

given and received their energy from family, faith, and

friends. And they have generously extended that strength to

others. They have taken an active part in numerous nonprofit

and corporate boards and are the force behind Dr Pepper/Seven

Up Bottling Group's outstanding role as a corporate citizen.

In recognition of Julie and Jim Turner's contributions to the

greater Dallas community, The Senior Source is pleased to

honor them with the 10th Annual Spirit of Generations Award.

Jim Turner, an internationally recognized leader in the

soft drink industry, is part owner and CEO/President of the

Dr Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group. He has been recognized

with the two most coveted awards in the beverage industry:

Man of the Year from Beverage Industry and Beverage World's

Hall of Fame. He has also received the nationally prestigious

Horatio Alger Award, as well as the Russell H. Perry Free

Enterprise Award, the Baylor University Distinguished Alumni

Award, and has been inducted into the Baylor Sports Hall of

Fame. He serves on the board of Baylor Health Care System,

Boy Scouts of America Circle Ten Council, and Alzheimer's

Association, among other local and national organizations.

Like her husband, Julie Turner is involved in the business

affairs of the company and actively supports many local

organizations. She serves on the boards of the Baylor Health

Care System Foundation, Dallas Historical Society, is

Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Dallas Baptist

University, and is a member of the Crystal Charity Ball

Committee. A former teacher, she has served as PTA President

and was awarded Life-time Membership in the Texas PTA She is

committed to a number of local causes including, among

others, American Heart Association, Kidney Texas, Inc.,

AWARE, and Dallas Symphony Association.

The Turners are members of Park Cities Baptist Church and

enjoy family time with their daughters, Jenna and Amy, Amy's

husband, Brent, and their new pride and joy, grandson Turner.

With the Spirit of Generations Award, The Senior Source is

honoring this extraordinary couple for their selfless work

throughout the greater Dallas area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, throughout my 25 years of service in this House, I have always worked hard to ensure a bright economic future and a good quality of life for the people I represent. That is why I have consistently made transportation priorities of North Texas my own priorities here in Congress. I have always supported the Federal highway and transit bills that have come before the House, because I knew they would directly benefit the people of my area.

In 1998, for example, I voted in favor of TEA 21, the last transportation reauthorization bill passed by Congress. That bill widened a major thoroughfare in North Texas, Interstate 30, from six to eight and ten lanes, easing congestion in Dallas-Fort Worth and the surrounding areas.

TEA 21 also included important funding to expand DART, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System. As one of DART's original supporters, I knew that by reducing motor vehicle traffic on our already-overcrowded roads, the system would significantly reduce air pollution and ease the commute of thousands of Dallas residents. An important byproduct of both these projects were the many, many good jobs created for our community.

So for me it has always been an easy decision to vote for the transportation bills in this House, and that is why today I am proud to rise in strong support of this year's transportation authorization bill, TEA LU.

TEA LU will be one of the most important bills we pass in Congress this year, and the reason is simple: Transportation projects stimulate economic activity in our home communities. Quite simply, this bill is good for our Nation's economy. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration reports that for every $1 billion in Federal funds invested in highway infrastructure, it creates 47,500 new jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity.

So whenever Congress passes its transportation reauthorization bill, we do not simply reduce congestion and air pollution, we create jobs, good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, and we create huge opportunities for our constituents by bringing the government, the private sector and the general public together to help grow the economy so that those good jobs stay here at home in our own communities.

There is no doubt that for far too many Americans, the U.S. economy is in bad shape. Over 8 million people are currently unemployed, the average length of unemployment has risen to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration since 1984, and no new private sector jobs were created last month. So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is especially critical that we pass the transportation bill today.

The bill before us today continues to provide benefits for North Texas. It is my understanding that the bill contains $35 million in funding that I requested from the committee to replace Interstate 30 and Interstate 35 Trinity River bridges in Dallas and for the improvements to I-635 in Dallas. The bill also authorizes four new rail lines to expand DART in Dallas, including construction of a Northwest/ Southeast extension that will add 60,000 daily riders to the rail system.

So, by passing TEA LU, we will not only be reducing air pollution and easing congestion throughout the metropolitan area, we will be creating new jobs and a brighter economic future for North Texas.

Mr. Speaker, highway and transportation funding must never be subject to partisan politics. There is too much at stake for the American people, and there is too much at stake for the economy. I know that my colleagues all want the same thing for their constituents as I want for mine: clean air, better roads and good jobs. The bill before us today can set us on that path. I hope that today Members will set aside politics as usual and vote to pass TEA LU for the good of our communities and our entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a yea vote on the rule and on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the bill before us today will ease congestion, reduce pollution, and create good jobs across America. Most Members of this House, myself included, will vote to pass TEA LU. But I think we are missing out on a unique opportunity to further strengthen our economy.

Last night the Committee on Rules and this morning considered the Davis-Menendez-Blumenauer-Baird amendment to strengthen investment in our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure by increasing funding in the bill to the Senate-passed level of $318 billion. However, in a move that denies the House the opportunity to fully debate the transportation needs of this country, as is usually the case when Democrats offer thoughtful alternatives in the Committee on Rules, the Republican majority defeated the amendment on a straight party-line vote.

So today I hope to offer Members another chance to vote on this important proposal. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will give the House the opportunity to debate and vote on the Davis substitute.

Mr. Speaker, although I hope to see more legislation to help the economy come before this House, the transportation bill before us today will be our best chance to spur job creation this year. And the Davis substitute will create nearly 1.8 million additional jobs over the bill we have on the floor today, with 120,000 new jobs in my home State of Texas alone, and create $235 billion worth of economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, when you consider the 8.2 million people in this country that are currently unemployed, I do not see how you can vote against a measure that will create 1.8 million new jobs.

So I urge my colleagues today to vote in favor of a job creation and economic development package by voting ``no'' on the previous question. We only reauthorize the transportation bill once every 6 years. Let us not squander this unique opportunity to create jobs and strengthen the economy by giving in to politics as usual.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that the quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Economics 101 tells us that if we spend more than we make, we quickly find ourselves in a hole. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) often says when asked about the Federal deficit, the first thing we have to do when we find ourselves in a hole is stop digging. Well, Mr. Speaker this country has been digging for 3 straight years, and the result is a very, very deep hole.

Three years ago we projected a surplus of $432 billion for fiscal year 2005. But the Republican budgets of the past 3 years have changed a few things. We now face a deficit of $521 billion this year; a debt accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the last year, this year, and the next; and deficits will continue as far as our forecasts go. That is a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the Members why.

Budget deficits and the ensuing debt are bad for the economy. That is a view that almost all economists share. The current chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, even agrees. As a matter of fact, I have right here his well-known and respected 1998 economics textbook, ``Principles of Economics.'' In it, Professor Mankiw wrote about what he called `` . . . the most basic lesson about budget deficits,'' that when a government runs a budget deficit, investment falls and the economy's growth rate is reduced.

This is a very important point to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the budget deficit can really harm the economy, especially since the jobs outlook for the 8.2 million unemployed is getting worse, not better. The latest Labor Department numbers show the average length of unemployment is now up to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration of unemployment in 20 years. Coupled with the administration's refusal to extend unemployment benefits, the situation for the jobless looks bleak and unlikely to improve.

It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Our Nation's surpluses were meant to shore up Social Security for the retiring baby boom generation and pay down the national debt. This may sound familiar to anyone who may be listening to the debate today, and it should. Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row, this House is considering a budget that makes deep funding cuts to our national priorities while at the same time it drives America deeper and deeper into debt.

There is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole now, Mr. Speaker: by working together, as a national family, to restore fiscal responsibility. That is how families across the country operate. They take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income, and then they sit down at the kitchen table and work it out.

That is what Democrats have tried to do repeatedly with the Federal budget. We have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us in a bipartisan budget plan that does not bankrupt our grandchildren.

Last year, Democrats offered a budget that would have saved our Nation and our grandchildren almost $1 trillion in debt over 10 years. I need to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The budget Democrats proposed last year cost almost $1 trillion less over 10 years than the Republican budget. That is a phenomenal number, but not one Republican Member of this House voted for that bill, not one.

Mr. Speaker, despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not want to deal with the problem of the deficit. They would rather hide behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their agenda.

The budget that is before us today does not reflect the fiscal reality of our Nation today, Mr. Speaker. That is because it omits a number of large expenditures that are sure to exist, including funding for the war in Iraq after fiscal year 2005 and the cost of making the President's tax cuts permanent, a goal that Republicans have repeatedly advocated, but which is conspicuously missing from their budget. Republicans also assume billions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will never be enacted.

At best, the Republican budget will dig our Nation deeper into debt, leaving us with a $377 billion deficit in 2005, spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009, and leaving America with deeper deficits far into the future. It is an irresponsible proposal brought to us by the leadership of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of this. The American people deserve better, and they expect that Congress will act in their best interest, not spend the Social Security surplus and burden their grandchildren with debt. I believe that America deserves better than this partisan misleading and divisive resolution. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Democratic budget alternative.

The Democratic budget resolution will provide real fiscal discipline, with a balanced budget over 10 years, by extending pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts and by offsetting the cost of tax cuts through reform measures such as closing costly loopholes and eliminating abusive tax shelters. There are no tricks, no gimmicks, and no hidden costs.

The Republican budgets of the past 3 years have clearly led America in the wrong direction. And what do we have to show for 3 years of fiscal mismanagement, 2.9 million fewer jobs, paltry funding for education, health care, and other national priorities, and a $1.2 trillion debt for our grandchildren to pay. The budget resolution before us today will only compound these problems.

If Members of Congress are really serious about reducing the debt, they would vote today for the Democratic budget alternative. Democrats have put together an honest proposal to reduce the deficit, invest in our Nation, and restore fiscal responsibility in the budget process. It is the right and responsible vote to make for this country, its economy and its people. And that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Democratic budget alternative.

The American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that we do have some speakers and one is here currently.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment. This amendment would require that any new mandatory spending or tax cuts must be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

For some reason, the Republican leadership is afraid to allow Members the opportunity to vote on this responsible and reasonable proposal. Three years ago the budget deficit was shrinking and the economy was robust and growing; but, as Members have stated today, the leadership of the Republican Party has turned a balanced budget into record deficit spending. And here they go again, pushing a dangerous budget that will spiral the deficit out of control.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just do not see how we can continue this reckless, unchecked growth in our national debt. I believe deficit spending is a serious threat to our economy. The numbers are so high and out of control, they have almost lost their full impact. Republicans are throwing trillions of dollars around like it is pocket change. But it is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker; it is a staggering number, and it can crush any chance our Nation has of an economic recovery.

We must put something in place to halt the out-of-control deficit, and I think the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment is a step in the right direction. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will let the American people know once and for all which Members stand in favor of reduced deficits, responsible spending, and fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Cesar Chavez, who forged a legacy of service, conviction, and principled leadership that helped define a new decade of reform. Cesar began working early in life as a migrant farm worker during the Great Depression. He soon became involved with the Community Service Organization, a self-help group for Mexican-Americans, which sparked his desire to establish an organization solely dedicated to farm workers. His dream became a reality in 1962 when the National Farm Workers Association was established, and from that point on he dedicated the next 31 years of his life to pursuing social justice. He helped establish a 5-year strike by California grape pickers, as well as boycotts of grapes and lettuce that grew nationwide attention. Mr. Chavez will always be remembered and admired for achieving powerful change through this use of nonviolent activism. In honor of his many contributions to society he received the highest civilian awards from the United States and Mexico, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Aguila Azteca. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Mr. Cesar Chavez will be honored and remembered for his lifelong contribution to not only the Hispanic community, but to all of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Benito Juarez, an influential Mexican hero who made an amazing impact during his lifetime. The son of Native American parents and the first president of Native American descent, Don Juarez worked hard to educate himself in law and to later become one of Mexico's greatest leaders. He established a new democratic government after the fall of Mexican General Antonio de Santa Anna, and he later he helped to restore this government after the French military invasion led by Austria's Archduke Maximilian.

As a national hero and President of Mexico, Benito Juarez left a legacy of liberal reforms that helped establish Mexico as a more democratic place to live. His democratic ideals were further embodied in the Constitution of 1857 which gave the Mexican people their basic rights of free speech and press. Due to significant contributions to Mexico through his service in state and national legislature and as a judge, a governor, and ultimately a president, Benito Juarez is regarded as one of the greatest heroes in Mexican history.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. I do so because it is time to send a strong message to broadcasters that indecent television and radio programs are not okay.

For too long, the producers of indecent programming have regarded FCC fines as just a minor nuisance; as a cost of doing business. That attitude has to end. Congress needs to send a strong message to broadcasters that doing anything for profit, no matter how much it offends American viewers and harms the public interest, is definitely not okay.

Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of broadcasting in our country is that the American people grant private businesses the ability to make money while using our public airwaves. In exchange for a license, we ask that broadcasters air programs that serve the public interest, and we ask them not to broadcast indecent material at times when children are likely to be watching or listening. In other words, we have a social contract with our media companies. They can use the airwaves, but they must run their businesses in a socially responsible way. They must remember they have a duty to serve not only their shareholders but also the American people.

The reason we have special rules for radio and television programming is that the broadcast media is, in the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, ``a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.''

When 100 million Americans, including myself, tuned into the Super Bowl, we allowed a broadcast company to enter the privacy of our homes. Just like any other guest, we welcomed them into our home. We expected the Super Bowl broadcast to be respectful of us and our families. We do not expect to agree with our house guests on everything, but we do expect them to show good judgment and to refrain from saying crude and offensive things, especially when children are in the room. What we all got on February 1 was anything but a good guest, Mr. Speaker.

Besides the now infamous incident involving Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the half-time show was full of crude and sexually explicit performances. Throughout the game, we were subjected also to some offensive advertising. And all this was going on in our dens, our living rooms, and the other places we gather every year to watch the Super Bowl. It is estimated that one in five American children were watching this year's Super Bowl broadcast.

I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the actual Super Bowl game was one of the most exciting, best-played games in the 38-year history of the sporting event. Decided by a field goal kicked with 4 seconds left, this year's game had plenty of action and drama to sell itself on its own merits, without adding the controversial material that has provoked so much outrage for the past month.

To be fair, we should not be singling out the Super Bowl broadcast for our disapproval. When I drive around the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, I enjoy going up and down the radio dial to listen to many different stations that offer information and entertainment to the people of North Texas. I hear a lot of good programming, but I am also astonished at the amount of gratuitous foul language some talk show hosts use on a daily basis. The hosts of my favorite sports talk shows in the Dallas market seem to be using more and more offensive language.

I applaud the FCC commissioners for aggressively cracking down on this type of programming and hope that this legislation gives them a more effective enforcement tool.

I would also like to note that this problem goes beyond just the programming we receive in our homes from the FCC broadcast licensees. Congress does not currently have the same power to regulate the indecent content of cable programming as we do over broadcast programming. But all of us who have cable television know that there are cable network shows aired during family hours that are equally offensive and indecent. Although they operate under a regulatory system that would not be covered by the bill we are considering today, I urge the cable networks to remember that they have a social responsibility to the American people too.

Mr. Speaker, some people may be suggesting that with this bill and the speeches we are giving today, we are trying to censor speech or limit expression in our society. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a former broadcast journalist, and as the father of a broadcast journalist, I have a deep respect for the right of journalists, artists, political and religious leaders, and anyone else for that matter, to exercise their constitutional freedom of speech. Our communication laws on obscenity and indecency do not stop free speech or suppression. They simply say it is not always appropriate to broadcast crude and sexually explicit material into our homes and into our motor vehicles, especially when our children could be watching or listening.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and the FCC's new efforts to take back our air waives from the people who have cynically decided the best way to sell advertising is by shocking and offending us. I have more faith in Americans than that. Voting for this bill is not just a vote to protect our families from indecent programming, it is also a vote in support of the vast majority of broadcasters, producers, and performers today who are running profitable businesses while broadcasting in a way that serves the interests of our families and our society.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on ``UNE-P'' pricing of wholesale phone lines.

Mr. Speaker, telecommunications companies are set to invest billions of dollars in network infrastructure--investment that will help the weak economy and create and preserve jobs--but the current regulatory environment restricts growth and investment in the telecom sector.

With this decision, the FCC should play a major role, as envisioned by Congress in passing the 1996 Telecom Act, of stimulating technological innovation, preserving quality universal service, and creating new jobs in a vital, growing, competitive industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to recognize the 75th anniversary of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and largest Hispanic organization in the country. Since its inception on February 17, 1929, LULAC has championed the cause of Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico.

In 1930, the organization desegregated hundreds of public places, including barber shops, swimming pools, restaurants, hotels and others. The following year, LULAC helped organize and fund the case against the Del Rio, Texas, Independent School District, which was the first class- action lawsuit against a segregated Mexican school. Again in 1946 LULAC set its sights on ending segregation in schools through the Mendez v. Westminster lawsuit, which ended a century of segregation in California's public schools, and by 1948 it ended the segregation of Mexican children in the State of Texas.

By 1940, LULAC had sought to change the workplace for Hispanics, helping to file discrimination cases for the Federal Employment Practices Commission. LULAC was also crucial in earning Hispanics the right to vote by taking the Hernandez v. the State of Texas case to the Supreme Court in 1954.

Mr. Speaker, we all should recognize the valuable work of this organization.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Texas Democrats have joined me here today on an issue of fairness. Will this House be fair to those who stand to lose a Social Security pension that has been fairly paid into and is fairly deserved, or will they vote to drive valuable public servants out of a system that desperately needs them?

Some Members believe that the Texas teachers and other public employees want some sort of special treatment. They do not. Their spouse correctly and completely paid into the Social Security system. And if they were just not teachers, policemen or firefighters, then they would receive their spousal benefit. Is this the message that we want to send, that the Social Security system will treat everyone honestly except those who are most valuable to our society?

Every Member here today supports the underlying bill, the Social Security Protection Act. Its main provisions would deny Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to get a lawyer for the complicated disability process, and reform the representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded.

In fact, the House considered all of these reforms during the 107th Congress in a bill that passed the House unanimously. Unfortunately, that bill, H.R. 4070, was not conferenced before the end of the Congress, and it has returned in this much more controversial form.

I support all the reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker; and if the bill consisted of just these provisions, we would again pass this bill unanimously. But the same bill that helps protect our seniors from Social Security fraud hurts our teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants around the country, including in my home State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent those hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement benefits from the harsh impact of the Government Pension Offset.

Mr. Speaker, this issue may appear complicated to some, but it is very clear to the thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and other public servants who are affected by it. So clear, that both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are opposed to this bill.

Many teachers in this country have pension plans that are not covered under Social Security, but they have spouses who are working in jobs that do pay into Social Security. Under normal circumstances, a surviving spouse, such as a teacher, would be eligible for spousal or survivor's benefits if their spouse, who paid into Social Security, dies. But under current law, the Government Pension Offset reduces or eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits for teachers and others who pay into pension plans that are not covered by Social Security.

Fortunately, there is a provision in the law right now that helps some people in this situation. It allows you to protect your retirement by switching jobs at the end of your career. This ``last day exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that they now need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill would eliminate this exemption. Instead, it would force teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 additional years before receiving full spousal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income individuals. That is why I will ask Members to defeat the previous question on this bill today. If we do, then I will do something that 285 of our colleagues have asked this Congress to do, and that is to eliminate the Government Pension Offset.

Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), has a bill, H.R. 594, which 285 of us have cosponsored, which calls for the elimination of the GPO. If we defeat the previous question, then I will attach that bill to H.R. 743 without section 418 and then

bring the measure before the House for its immediate passage so that teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their retirement benefits.

Mr. Speaker, there should not be a Texas Member in this House who does not vote to defeat the previous question. I would hope others would join us. I urge my colleagues to support Social Security fairness for teachers, firefighters, and police officers by voting to defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense to me to reduce the Social Security of a retiree simply because the spouse of that person happens to be a teacher or firefighter or police officer. These jobs are not high- paying jobs. Those who chose this path have done so because they

want to make life better for all of us. And what do we do? We deprive them of a significant portion of their hard-earned retirement benefits just because one spouse works for a government entity instead of a private company. That is just wrong.

I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will do two things.

First, it will strike Section 418, the portion of the bill that prevents certain public employees from receiving the full amount of their deceased spouse's Social Security survivor benefits, benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

It will also add to the base bill, H.R. 743, the text of H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act which will once and for all eliminate the pension offsets that so unfairly diminish all the retirement benefits of our valued public employees.

I want to point out that H.R. 594 is a broadly bipartisan bill and has the support of 285 co-sponsors, nearly two-thirds of the membership on the House.

Vote no on the previous question so we can help all of those who were unfairly penalized in their pension benefits simply because their spouse is a government employee and one works for the private sector.

Let us support those who go into the public service. Let us support our teachers, our policemen and our firemen, not penalize them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.