Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to dedicated soldiers, marines and citizens from my district that paid the ultimate price while serving our country.

Next weekend, our Nation will commemorate Memorial Day. All too often we forget the purposes of our special days we set aside to celebrate. Memorial Day is much more than a three-day weekend that marks the beginning of summer. This day, originally known as Decoration Day, has a long history dating back to the Civil War, commemorating the sacrifices of our armed forces. During this Memorial Day it is fitting that we make a special effort to honor and acknowledge those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defending our freedom and the freedom of others in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends who are mourning the loss of Private First Class Chad Bales, Private First Class Ricky Morris, Specialist Robert Arsiaga, Specialist Israel Garza, Corporal Daniel Amaya, and Private First Class Clayton Henson. These gentlemen served our country with courage and dignity. There is no greater valor than sacrifice in the name of freedom.

I pray for the safe return of all of our servicemen and women and thank them for the sacrifice they make every day defending our country.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for working with me in adding $100 million to add 10 additional B-1 bombers. As my colleagues know, the B-1 played a very major role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the B-1s from Dyess Air Force Base were an integral part of that mission.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to that day.

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate Budget Committee, they adopted a provision which would have reduced the maximum payments farmers can receive under the 2002 farm bill, and I asked the gentleman to address that during the conference. Is that provision still in the budget?

Earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee adopted a provision in its budget resolution which assumes enactment of legislation reducing the maximum payments farmers can receive from commodity support programs. As the Chairman knows, the 2002 Farm Bill addressed this issue through a delicate compromise acceptable to rural members across different regions of the country. Any erosion of this compromise would penalize producers in my West Texas district who would be punished for the efficiencies they have achieved. To clarify for my constituents who strongly oppose the Senate provision, I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee if the Senate payment limit provision was dropped in conference?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his efforts on behalf of my constituents in West Texas.

My constituents will be most pleased and relieved by the decision to remove the Senate's farm payment limit proposal in the conference version of the budget resolution and the Chairman's continued affirmation that neither this budget, nor the House version, will reduce any Farm Bill program payments.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit this prayer for the Record for the National Day of Prayer.

Father, we come to you this day that we have set aside for prayer in this great nation. May we be a nation of prayer not just on this day, but every day.

We come today acknowledging you as the Creator of heaven and earth. We thank you that You have given us the privilege of living in this great land and have blessed it in a mighty way. Our prayer today is that we would indeed be ``One Nation under God''.

We pray for our President as he leads during these difficult days. Give him the wisdom and courage to make clear and decisive decisions. We pray for the men and women that are defending our world today from evil. We pray for their safety and their return to the family and loved ones that wait anxiously for their homecoming. May their families know your peace and comfort now as never before. Freedom and liberty do not come without a price. Many have gone before and paid a huge price for us to live in this great nation and to enjoy the freedoms we have today. Let us never forget their sacrifice and help us to be good stewards of the inheritance they have left us.

Finally, Father today more than ever our nation needs healing. The principles on which this nation was founded and which You ordained are under attack. The scriptures say, ``If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my

face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'' Our prayer today is that America would be a nation that daily seeks You and that our ways would be pleasing in your sight and that You would indeed heal our land.

We ask all these things in the name of your son Jesus. Amen.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 129, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, Congress does not have an income problem. What we have is a spending problem. We don't need to increase taxes, as the alternative budgets propose. What we need to do is hold down spending in order to start reducing this deficit.

My constituents are simply taxed-out. I can't go back to them and say that instead of allowing the tax relief approved in 2001 and 2003 to continue, we plan to let their taxes go back up so that Congress can spend more.

Which priorities come first? The priorities of families out there working hard and small businesses striving to expand and create jobs or the priorities of those who want more government spending? I believe the priorities of our families and small businesses come first, but others just don't seem to get it.

As a small business owner, I know how important tax relief is to the growth of small business, the economy and for job creation. We're on the right track with economic growth and job creation, and we need to continue down that path. Passing a budget alternative that increases taxes moves our country and the economy in the wrong direction. We need to continue to grow the American economy--not the American government.

The Republican budget gets our spending under control, cutting the deficit in half over four years without reducing our national defense, homeland security or veterans care. It acknowledges that out of the trillions of dollars in Federal spending, there is waste and abuse we can cut without diminishing effective and useful programs and benefits. Our budget sets sound priorities and gives us the means to follow through on them.

As we consider these budget alternatives today, the bottom line is that all of the Democratic alternatives raise taxes in order to grow spending. The Republican budget does not raise taxes and reduces spending. It's not hard to guess which alternative my constituents prefer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Shallowater High School State champion boys and girls basketball teams. Within the span of 1 week, the Shallowater boys teams followed the girls in an elite list of State basketball championships. This is an unprecedented victory for the school which can only be attributed to pure hard work and dedication.

In a rare moment in Texas State championships, both the girls and boys basketball teams won a State title. The Mustangs from Shallowater executed a 47-45 overtime victory over Argyle, thus winning the class 2A boys championship game. Just a week earlier, the Fillies, the girls team from Shallowater, triumphed over Aubrey with a dramatic 44-37 win and captured the girls 2A State championship game.

This is no small feat for a rural community high school like Shallowater to achieve what it has in this past week. These students have shown exemplary performance and proven what a commitment can do.

Shallowater is the home of champions. The players, Coach Chuck Darden, and Coach Ray Morris will go down in history as the folks who put their town in the spotlight through determination and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and acknowledge Mr. J.E. Hancock, who passed away on March 5, 2004 at age 98. Through the course of my career, working in the business world and as a public official, rarely have I been so privileged to associate with such an extraordinary person who gives unselfishly and wholeheartedly to the interests and welfare of other people.

Born August 4, 1905, in Sherman, Texas, Mr. Hancock married Eileen Carruth on June 24, 1928. The couple moved to Lubbock in 1930 where Mr. Hancock finished his degree from Texas Tech University. After short teaching stints in New Home, Pettit, and O'Donnell, Texas, the couple moved back to Lubbock to farm.

Mr. Hancock was not only a renowned Lubbock inventor, but also one of Lubbock Christian University's (LCU) greatest benefactors. A man of great optimism and vision, it would not be in excess to say that Lubbock Christian University owes a significant part of its present status to Mr. Hancock's efforts and contributions. In fact, he is the single largest donor in the university's history and had given the school more than $10 million over the years.

In addition to being a large financial contributor, he was elected to the board of trustees in February 1967 and served as chairman from 1978 to 1998. Mr. Hancock's achievement during this period is highlighted by the fact that during this period, LCU came into its own as a four-year college in 1972. On this vein, Mr. Hancock was largely responsible for helping LCU achieve university status in 1987. Moreover, his infectious enthusiasm and dynamism proved to be a stimulant that triggered several positive changes within the university. As a tribute to their services, LCU's College of Liberal Arts is named after Gene and Eileen Hancock.

As an inventor too, Mr. Hancock was not one to be left behind. Looking for a better way to terrace land, Hancock invented the Elevating-Terracer. This tool has proven to be a boon to its users and has been applied to all sizes and types of earth-moving scraper equipment. The Elevating-Terracer was such a success that it lead to the establishment of Hancock Manufacturing Co. in Lubbock in 1947. The company went on to produce many new and improved scrapers. Now, Mr. Hancock holds 18 patents on his machinery designs and more than 15,000 Hancock scrapers were sold on a global level. Highly acclaimed, his designs have been used even in Israel, where the scrapers were used to dig the irrigation canal from the Sea of Galilee to the south desert. Following a successful business career, Hancock Manufacturing was acquired by Clark Equipment Co. in 1966.

Mr. Hancock is fondly remembered by his community as the multi- faceted pioneer and philanthropist who helped to make a difference to the people and society around him. To dream of helping is not difficult, but it is only those with real initiative, passion and creativity who actually succeed in becoming an instrument of change. Mr. Hancock was among those who succeeded. Anyone would do well to emulate his example if they truly desire a life that makes a difference and leaves a legacy.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending my sincere thanks to Gene Hancock. I am truly honored to recognize his accomplishments. He will certainly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of President Bush's economic initiatives. As a former small businessman, I have watched closely as the President's initiatives have improved the economy, even in the aftermath of September 11.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting a lot of backlash from folks who say the economy is not doing well. Well, they are wrong. These are just a few of the positive headlines that are coming out of my district: ``West Texas Housing Moves Up At Record Levels.'' ``Statewide Confidence Index Predicts Economy is on the Upswing.'' ``Jobless Rate the Lowest in Almost 4 Years.'' ``The Economy is Doing Well.''

When President Bush took office, the economy was headed into a recession. The stock market had just collapsed, the manufacturing industry was at an all-time low, and then the United States was hit with the events of 9-11, and then military campaigns on the war on terrorism. Now, durable goods shipments are up, factory orders are up, consumer spending is up. Today the housing ownership rate in America is the highest it has ever been in the history of this country. The President has shown, and I agree, when you put the money in the hands of the small business people in America, they will create jobs. Mr. Speaker, what the President knows and what I know is that the American people know how to spend their own money a lot better than the United States Congress does.

In an article dated just a week ago in Odessa, Texas, saw sales tax revenues rise for the 15th straight month, and the entire Permian Basin showed strong gains and signs of improving. In Odessa, more and more people are employed and they are spending their money, which is strengthening the local economies.

The Democrats are saying, we are not adding jobs to this economy. Well, the truth is, the economy has experienced 6 consecutive months of job growth and has added 364,000 jobs over the last 6 months. There are nearly 3 million more workers now than in early 2002. Basically, more Americans were working in January 2004 than at any other time in the history of this country.

Democrats would have the American people believe that more and more people are being laid off every day. Once again, they are wrong. The unemployment rate is down. Today's rate, in fact, is below the average for the entire decades of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Even when the Democrats ended a temporary extended unemployment benefits program in the 1990s, today's unemployment rate is lower than it was at that time.

The manufacturing arena, which has struggled for 37 months of decline, is reporting expanded employment for the fourth consecutive month. So that when Democrats complain that the industry is hemorrhaging, that is simply not true. Like former President Reagan, I believe fervently that the government should cut taxes and regulations on small businesses, enabling them to do what they do best, and that is create jobs.

Those in the House who oppose these values believe that the Federal Government has an income problem. That is not true. The Federal Government has a spending problem.

When my sons came home from college and said, Dad, I am out of money, can I have some more, the answer was, no, you will have to tighten your budget and work with the money that your mother and I give you. What they know, what I know, and what my colleagues know is the way we cure deficits is not with giving people more money; you encourage them to spend less money. And that is the way the Federal Government should act.

I believe in tax cuts as a solution rather than a contributor to the deficits. I credit President Bush's tax cuts, which were pushed through Congress for an additional 21,000 new jobs just last month.

I served for years in the land development industry, and I watched the market move up and down and back and forth, but more recently I have seen a huge surge in the housing market. More single family homes were purchased in 2003 than any other year in the history of this country, and the homeownership rate in America is at an all-time high. President Bush's initiatives to dismantle the barriers to homeownership include providing down payment assistance through the American Dream Down Payment Initiative, increasing the supply of affordable homes through the Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, and increasing the support for the Self-Help Ownership and Opportunities Program, and increasing home-buying education and counseling.

In June 2002, President Bush issued the American Homeowners Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between minorities and nonminorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeownership by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade.

Congress has a choice. It can continue to grow the economy and create jobs as the President's policies are doing, or it can raise taxes on American families, hurting the economic recovery and any future job creation.

I stand with small businessmen and women of America who say the President is absolutely right.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.

Over the past few months, I have received nearly 2,000 e-mails, phone calls and letters from my constituents expressing their displeasure with content of TV programs. My constituents are telling me enough is enough. When broadcasters violate indecency rules and a complaint is filed, my constituents want it to be taken seriously by the FCC. They want meaningful penalties that will make broadcasters think twice before airing objectionable programs. They want broadcasters to be held accountable.

Above all, they want to be able to watch an entertainment program with their family without having them exposed to content unsuitable for children. When supposedly family-friendly programming such as the Super Bowl becomes a program many families don't want their children to see, we have a problem. As a grandfather, I worry about being able to turn on the TV and watch a program or sports event with my 3 and 5 year old grandsons.

I think this legislation addresses many of my constituents' concerns. Raising the cap on fines to $500,000 for broadcasts that violate the rules helps show that Congress and the FCC are serious about punishing offenses. The current cap is only $27,000 per violation, a drop in the bucket for most broadcasters. When broadcasters know that indecency violations will be taken into consideration when they ask the FCC to renew their broadcast licenses, they are going to take additional precautions to prevent instances of indecency. If a broadcaster accumulates three violations, this will now trigger a hearing to review revoking that station's license.

This legislation sends a strong signal that Congress is serious about enforcement of broadcast indecency regulations. If all Members' constituents care about this issue as much as mine do, then this should be an easy bill for us to support.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This bill will establish separate criminal offenses for the killing or injuring of an unborn baby during the commission of a Federal crime involving a pregnant woman.

While most States have passed fetal homicide laws, under Federal law there are currently no legal consequences for the killing or injuring of an unborn child during an attack on a pregnant woman. This bill will establish a Federal statute for what a majority of the States have already classified as criminal, the killing of a fetus or an unborn child.

As a Federal representative, it is essential that I take care of those who are at risk in society, and this legislation does just that. This is a question of justice in the name of those who do not have a voice. Opponents of H.R. 1997 claim that the loss of an unborn child only harms the mother. However, that poor accounting fails to consider the independent harm to another human being. Current Federal law is simply unjust and incomplete. Federal laws must not tell grieving mothers and families there was only one victim when, in fact, there were two.

Studies show that in some States murder is the leading cause of death of pregnant women, not complications from pregnancy. The Federal Government is lagging behind. While a majority of States have enacted statutes permitting the prosecution of a person for the murder of both a pregnant woman and her unborn child, injuring or killing an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime has no legal consequences under Federal law.

A recent study showed that 84 percent of Americans believe that prosecutors should be able to bring homicide charges on behalf of an unborn child killed in a womb. Unborn victims' legislation has withstood legal tests from an Illinois appellate court in People v. Ford, which concluded that a State's fetal homicide statute did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and was not unconstitutionally vague. I believe this bill is constitutionally sound and provides the proper legal protection that unborn children deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and acknowledge the Junior League of Lubbock as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary. Through the course of my life, I have seen the Junior League do amazing things. As their mission statement reads, they were created to be ``an organization of women committed to promoting volunteerism, developing the potential of women, and improving our community through the effective action of trained volunteers''. As innovative and radical as this mission statement sounded half a century ago, the League stands firm today, backed by a half century of successes.

In February of 1954, the Junior Welfare League of Lubbock was born into the Association of Junior Leagues International. Armed with a charter that was approved on March 15 of the same year, theirs has been a story of untiring determination and commitment. They have, over the past fifty years, been the gateway for several incredible women who have dedicated themselves to the cause of society. The League has consistently helped these women gain invaluable training and leadership skills, while providing for innumerable volunteer opportunities. Moreover, the fundraisers conducted by the organization over past years have borne fruit in the form of approximately three million dollars. This amount has added to the sparkle of the Lubbock community in the form of several outstanding and worthwhile projects. For example, Ronald McDonald House, Safety City, Fire Safety House, Children's Advocacy Center, and Legacy Play Village are just a few of their many noted accomplishments.

In this age and era, one often hears of how the cloud of selfishness and distrust has eclipsed our world. However, looking upon an organization like the Junior Welfare League of Lubbock, one cannot help but experience the light of compassion and giving that motivates it. It is even more impressive when one considers the discipline with which the volunteers work and coordinate. Without doubt, the League has whole-heartedly striven to fulfill the goals that they set when they were first formed.

The 183rd member to join the Association of Junior Leagues International, the Lubbock League is named as one of its finest chapters today. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine Lubbock without its beloved Junior Welfare League. Through their various volunteer projects, the organization has been instrumental in propelling Lubbock's growing prosperity. More importantly, it has served to act as an influential wind wane for the youth, and has repeatedly inspired the community to take up more volunteer projects. The organization's integrity and service-minded approach has endeared it to all the residents of Lubbock, and I am sure that I am not alone when I say that it has become a part of Lubbock history and society.

To dream of social work is not difficult. However, to actually persevere toward implementing that dream is not easy because it takes a lot of dedication, creativity and initiative. And so, when we celebrate 50 years of existence of the Lubbock's Junior Welfare League, we are actually celebrating those qualities and people that have made these 50 years a successful reality.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending my hearty congratulations to the Junior League of Lubbock. I applaud them and extend my sincere wishes for all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2707, the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act.

In Texas, New Mexico, and other Western States prone to drought, Salt Cedar trees are absorbing millions of gallons of water that our communities and farms can put to better use. Landowners and local State agencies have been working to slow the spread of Salt Cedars and eradicating them from the banks of rivers and streams, but this effort has been an uphill battle. Their vast root systems and abundant seeds carried by wind and water make getting rid of them very challenging. Unless we eliminate them, Salt Cedars will continue soaking up valuable and scarce water that west Texas communities need.

The demonstration projects and research authorized by this legislation will help find more effective means to speed the eradication of Salt Cedars. Better strategies for fighting the spread of Salt Cedars will benefit communities across State lines. Much water used in west Texas originates in other States, and Salt Cedars along those rivers are reducing the supply available to all of us.

Salt Cedar eradication projects are showing results. A project in the Pecos River in Texas has saved 12 billion gallons of water, nearly enough water to serve my hometown of Lubbock for 1 year, and additional eradication efforts are under way. In order to effectively eliminate Salt Cedar, these projects must cover many miles of rivers and stream banks. Taking out large areas of Salt Cedar at a time reduces the spread of new plants.

A mature Salt Cedar can use up to 200 gallons of water per day, much more water than native vegetation that could be replanted to stabilize those stream banks. Salt Cedars add to the salinity of water, which kills other plants and displaces wildlife.

While we still need rain in west Texas to alleviate the drought and replenish water supplies, we also need to take proactive steps to save the water resources we already have. Large-scale eradication of Salt Cedars is one of the means to conserve water. Enacting this legislation to further demonstration projects and additional research will help other States, our State and other communities implement the best strategies to deal with this Salt Cedar infestation sucking down our water supplies.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 610.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).