Kevin Brady

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Yes.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. No.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the husband paid in in one; the husband and wife paid in in both; and the husband and wife, the widow who paid her whole life, she gets less. Two classes of citizens in America. And nowhere do I know in America can one work one day, contribute $3, and take home $93,000 in their pocketbook that the widow next door who worked her whole life will never, ever see. It is time to close this loophole.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. This bill does not address firefighters or police officers or teachers, and not even all the teachers in Texas. It applies to \1/100\ of 1 percent of all Americans who have a special loophole. The point my good friend from Houston was making is absolutely wrong. They do not receive less money because they do not pay into Social Security; they actually get more money than the widows and the families who have spent their whole life paying into Social Security. They already get this. Under this loophole, they would get, for $3 of work, 1 day, they receive $93,000 on average in retirement; and our widows in hospitals and widows that clean our offices and widows, like my mom, will never see that money. This is about not creating two classes of citizens in America, those with a special loophole and those without.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. If you ever wonder why the American people have lost faith in politicians, all you need to do is look at this amendment. It is very disappointing. It is a cynical political stunt that hurts the unemployed in America, and it is shameful. The fact is, this leadership amendment by our Democratic friends does not extend unemployment benefits to even one American. It does not help even one American. That is because they do not use our unemployment insurance fund, the one we help people with. They say, we will create a new program out of an agency that does not even deal with unemployment. It will take months, years, whatever, to set it up, but we are trying to make a plumber do brain surgery, and we will convince you this will help you. Everyone in this room knows this is false. One would think if something was important, one would put money toward it, but this amendment does not even have a dollar, not even $1 allocated to back it up. Nowhere in this bill. And I would challenge anyone in this room to just point to the part of the amendment that includes the dollar amount we are going to provide for those who are unemployed. The answer is you cannot find it because there is not a dollar, nothing to help the unemployed in this amendment. We know that people have lost jobs, which is why this Congress sent to the States an unprecedented $8 billion to help people who are out of work. Since then, in the 2 years since we have done that, States still have most of that money left, $5.5 billion. Forty-five States still have money left. Most of them have 90 percent of what we sent to help people who are out of work. They have not spent it yet. The fact of the matter is that people did lose their jobs; Congress responded in a big way. The States have these dollars. And this amendment does nothing to help the unemployed. My thought is the last thing unemployed workers need is a false promise, an empty shelf, an amendment that accomplishes nothing but try to score political points off the backs of those who are unemployed. This is a cynical, political stunt that has no place in this Congress.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of our chairman on this important issue. For the last 4 decades, Medicare has helped millions of American seniors get needed health care, helping them live longer than any other generation before them. However, Medicare has become dangerously outdated. In America today, Medicare refuses to pay $80 a month for Lipitor to prevent heart disease, but will pay $20,000 in hospital costs after a life-threatening emergency has occurred. That does not make sense. Medicare needs to keep pace with these medical breakthroughs. Medicare must also be preserved and strengthened for future generations. We worked hard and we must act now so that seniors, baby boomers, and our young people can count on Medicare decades from now. We have worked hard to make sure Medicare is more like the health care plans Congress enjoys, more choices, better plans, and lower expenses for Medicare down the road. There are thoughtful new reforms to keep Medicare costs from ballooning out of control, and there are exciting new savings accounts that give Americans of every age more freedom to determine their health care costs. Our seniors deserve a modern prescription plan now and future generations deserve Medicare that they can count on. The bottom line is we can invest a dime now to help seniors afford their medicines, or we can pay a dollar later when they end up in the hospital or face emergency surgery that we could have prevented. Our seniors deserve a modern prescription plan today, and Republicans in Congress are going to deliver it.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The fact of the matter is that the best way that we can provide Medicare for our seniors is to give them a tested improvement that we ourselves are the beneficiaries of as Members of Congress. Some would like to just add Medicare prescription drugs onto the current Medicare system and if it goes bankrupt, it goes bankrupt. If the boomers use all the money, they use all the money. No big deal. Just let that happen. That is what this motion does. What we are trying to do is take the responsible approach. What we are trying to do is to offer to Medicare seniors not only a way to help them with their prescription drugs but a way to make Medicare better for them and a way to make it last longer. Yes, seniors in Medicare today, they will tell you there are serious problems with Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to see our seniors. There are complaints about service. This bill is increasing reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers, to these same hospitals that my friend from Texas talked about. But we are also adding something more important, a Medicare system you can count on for future years. The way we do that is not, as my friend from Abilene, Texas, just said, sort of what has come to appear to be a tried-and-true tested way to scare our seniors by using the word ``privatize,'' by saying we are ending Medicare as we know it. The fact of the matter is we are creating Medicare the way Members of Congress know it. Where we have a choice of plans that have worked for years and years and years for us, that have worked very well for us, and the question still comes down to if we add a prescription drug plan, should we not make Medicare last longer and improve it? And why cannot seniors have the same type of choice of health care plans that Members of Congress have? I mean have they not earned it at this point in life? And we know from recent studies that this is a proven way to provide health care in a way that helps provide Medicare for years and years and years to come. The sections that are being proposed to be struck today save costs for Medicare, make it more financially sound, and we have a prescription drug plan that they desperately need. We are putting Medicare on a sound financial basis that will last longer and be better. It allows taxpayers to share in the savings and, as beneficiaries, make the best choice for them, not what Washington wants. And it parallels the competition that we have in the plans that Members of Congress use. It creates a level playing field between traditional fee-for-service which our seniors can continue to choose, and many will, and private plans that offer more choices and lower costs over time. We are seeking these types of improvements because we know it is the only responsible way to help our seniors afford medicine costs and create a Medicare system they can count on for the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to know that what we are talking about tonight is not about Iraq. It is not about congressional pay raises. It is about our seniors getting drug help for medicines that they desperately need and to make sure that we change and improve Medicare in a way that it lasts, in a way that they can count on for years and years to come. It is true that an amendment was offered, and I always get a kick out of Washington. We think it is so important to score points against each other with amendments and clever motions on the floor. Our seniors, frankly, do not care about that. They need some help in buying medicines, and they need a Medicare system that will last long that they can count on. The fact of the matter is the amendment simply added costs to Medicare, did not add any of the improvements that would make it last longer. So bankrupting Medicare sooner is not something I would brag about, but in Washington people think that is clever. Also, in Washington a big intent is SOS, scare our seniors, talk about how Medicare can never be made better, that there are no improvements, there are no other options to look at. But the fact of the matter is my colleagues on the other side continue to claim traditional Medicare is more efficient than the private plans that we as Members of Congress have. If that is the case, they have nothing to fear from the reforms and improvements in the Medicare bill. If Medicare truly is more efficient than private plans, then the beneficiaries, our seniors, in competitive areas who remain in traditional fee-for-service will see their premiums go down; so they will benefit from this competition. We want to provide incentives for seniors to choose the best plan, the most efficient form of care, and if traditional Medicare is that, then they will be given incentives to remain in traditional Medicare through premium decreases. In other words, seniors will see their Medicare premiums go down, not up, and that will be a pleasant change for seniors. But if private plans like the ones Congress have can deliver Medicare service more efficiently, then we want seniors to have incentives to join those plans. We want them to have the choice to pick the plan that is best for them, not a one-size-fits-all from Washington. These improvements are necessary to bring Medicare costs under control so it lasts longer, so it is something our seniors can count on. We are not scaring seniors. We are offering them the choices they deserve at this time in their life. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will be brief in closing. The fact of the matter is that the section I read, this law, this very thick law deals with existing Medicare today, where we offer reassurance to seniors that there will be no change in those defined benefits. But the rest of that very thick bill talks about two things. The way that we can help seniors finally pay for the prescription costs that are so valuable to them, but so expensive, and, in a way that we are talking about tonight, we can offer seniors new choices in health care plans while we are making Medicare last longer and perform better. This is the issue we have before us tonight: whether we are willing to just simply add prescription drugs to Medicare, a load that will be too large when our baby boomers, our next generation come to rely upon Medicare; or do we add prescription drug coverage in a way that we also improve Medicare, where we make it last longer, where we make it a better system for our seniors, one that the next generation can count on; where we give the reforms and offer the choices that Members of Congress and our Federal workers have; where it is not Washington one- size-fits-all plans; where we do not dictate to people and mandate to people; where we do not ration the health care; where we do not tell them what is best for them; and where the bureaucracy does not get in- between the doctor and the patient. Mr. Speaker, our seniors want help with prescription coverage, but they also want a Medicare system they can count on for years and years and years to come. These reforms, these improvements will lengthen Medicare, make it a better health care system, offer new choices for seniors who want them, and offer the types of choices the Members of Congress have. That is the debate tonight. It all comes down to this: why is the health care system we have good enough for us in Congress, but not good enough for our seniors back home? My answer is that it is. They ought to have those same types of choices. They have earned it. They deserve it. And we are going to have a system that is not only better, but will last a long, long time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here is a lesson on how to scare seniors in three easy steps: Tell them you are going to privatize Medicare. Do not tell them we are going to offer the same choices that Members of Congress have. Tell them we are going to provide vouchers for Medicare. Do not tell them we are going to offer them the same types of choices that Congress has. Tell them we are going to end Medicare as you know it, but do not tell them we are trying to offer Medicare the way Members of Congress have health care. What they will not tell you, because it will actually reassure our seniors, is that the bill that we passed in this House, the bill that we are discussing tonight, says it clearly: There will be no change in Medicare's defined benefit package. Let me say that again: No change in Medicare's defined benefit package. We are not ending Medicare as people know it; we are offering more choices and better Medicare. ``Nothing in this part shall be construed as changing the entitlement to defined benefits under Parts A and B of the Social Security Act.'' The fact of the matter is, I think my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said it best when he said we are not prepared to offer seniors what we have. Well, Members on this side of the aisle, we are. We know that the health care choices we have as Federal workers and Members of Congress should be the choices our seniors have, and that is what this debate is about tonight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Medicare recently celebrated its 37th birthday. Medicine has changed a lot since 1965. Unfortunately, Medicare has not. Back then our seniors spent half their medical dollars for doctors, the rest for hospitals. It was pretty simple. But today, a remarkable 40 percent of seniors' costs are for prescription medicine. Through the miracle of modern science, through lifesaving drugs, technologies and new treatments, our parents and grandparents are living longer and healthier lives than any American generation. Best of all, due to new medicines, they are spending less of their golden years in hospitals and nursing homes and more of their time with their children and grandchildren. Medicare needs to change with the times. Our seniors deserve a Medicare that includes a modern prescription drug benefit, one that is voluntary so seniors can keep the good plans they already have, one that gives seniors the right to choose the prescription plan that is best for them, not what is best for Washington, one that is affordable so that seniors have the peace of mind from knowing Medicare will remain strong and viable for generations to come. This is important as an issue to our country and to our State. Back home in Texas, we have more than 2 million seniors who count on Medicare. On average, they fill 18 prescriptions a year, spending about $1,200 annually. Many of our seniors face serious problems paying for these medicines. It does not seem right that our neighbors when ill are opting to leave prescriptions unfilled or cutting back on food and sometimes traveling to other countries to purchase drugs simply to protect their precious health. At this point in their lives, do our parents and grandparents not deserve better? The time for petty partisan fighting is over. It is time for Congress to act right now. That is why I am proud to serve on one of the two committees which developed the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act that successfully passed the U.S. House of Representatives recently. The legislation brings Medicare into the 21st century. It provides catastrophic protection for seniors with very expensive medicine costs, extra help for the poor and lowers drug prices while still encouraging the medical breakthroughs that our loved ones are counting on. The plan starts with a 2-year discount drug card for the neediest seniors, reducing medicine costs by an estimated 25 percent. After that, a new Medicare part D that is for drugs will be available from several different health care plans for prescription medicine. Seniors may choose one or not. It is not mandatory. It is their choice. Like most health care plans, there will be a small annual deductible, monthly premiums of around $35, and copayments up to a certain amount. Some seniors we know have extremely expensive medicine costs, much greater than the average person. To make sure these seniors will not face losing all that they have worked a lifetime to save, the new Medicare health plan includes catastrophic coverage that picks up most of the prescription costs over a certain amount. And for the neediest seniors, Medicare will pay for the prescription health care plan and many of the costs that go along with it. Those details are being finalized as we speak tonight. But the House bill that we passed does more than just offer affordable prescription drug coverage. It also includes funding to make sure doctors and hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies continue to treat our Medicare seniors. In fact, the DSH hospitals, those who take care of our neediest, will receive a 20 percent increase. The allotment is increased 20 percent, a major amount, for those hospitals. There are new preventive tests added to Medicare, such as cholesterol screening and initial physicals; and there are important reforms to speed generic drugs to the market to lower drug prices. As one would imagine, no change of this importance is without honest disagreement. Some believe this bill is too small. They have offered a proposal three times larger, which as one would guess bankrupts Medicare within a few years and mandates a Washington-style one-size- fits-all plan that does nothing to actually improve Medicare. The better way, I believe, is to guarantee our seniors have a prescription plan they can count on; one that will not threaten future medical breakthroughs; one that will not lead to rationing of health care; and one that will extend the life of Medicare, not hasten its demise. Yet others believe this benefit is too large, that Congress should focus on giving help only to the poorest. Unfortunately, we already have a program like that. It is called Medicaid. It is not the model we should have for this Nation and for our seniors. As a fiscal conservative, I looked real hard at the cost of adding prescription medicine to Medicare, an additional 10 percent over the next 10 years. I am convinced we can spend a dime now to help seniors with their medicines, or we can pay a dollar later when they end up in the hospital, end up with a surgery they did not need to have if we would have helped them a little with the drugs beforehand. I am also proud to support one of the best improvements in the basic Medicare program, the one we are talking about tonight. In 2010, seniors will have a choice of their basic Medicare plans, much like the choice Members of Congress and other Federal workers have that are included in the Federal employee health care plan. Groups like the Heritage Foundation say these reforms found only in the House plan go a long way toward fundamental change in Medicare. My question is, If these health care plans are good enough for Congress, why can our seniors not have access to them? Why can they not have the type of choices we have for our families at taxpayer expense? Why can we not have plans like the Federal employee plan that not only works better, provides better coverage but does not increase so much in cost over the years? Recently a study was done that compared Medicare for the last 20 years against the Federal employee health care plan, the one the Members of Congress have. What the plan showed was that Medicare without prescription drugs rose faster in cost and price than the Federal plan with prescription drugs did. In other words, less care in Medicare, higher growing costs. More competition, better health care and the costs were lower over the years. Why can seniors not have the same choice of good health care plans for Medicare and the cost where we know with the baby boomers coming into Medicare in the future, we will want those reasonable increases so that we can make Medicare last forever? That is the issue tonight that we are debating. Why can seniors not have the same type of health care that Members of Congress have? Why can they not have good choices? Why can we not have one that will actually make Medicare last longer and not hasten its bankruptcy? We need these types of reforms when we add Medicare prescription drugs. As I watch our conferees, led by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means and the other conferees, I know that many Members of Congress, including myself, believe that added reforms to make Medicare better and last longer is the only responsible way to add a prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us clear up the facts again so we do not continue to scare our seniors for political purposes. The fact of the matter is that the Medicare entitlement has not changed. Medicare seniors will be able to choose the same fee-for-service they have for years. They will be able to choose it all throughout the country. The proposal we are talking about tonight actually saves money and lengthens the solid stability of Medicare. The fact of the matter is when you hear Members talk about ``we do not want to privatize Medicare,'' what they are saying is we do not want to provide the same choices the Members of Congress have. When they talk about giving money to the big, bad HMOs, they do not say, just like we do in the plans of Members of Congress. The fact of the matter is that in this proposal the reforms we are offering, the choices, are that we are giving seniors an opportunity to choose the plan that is best for them, plans like we have for our families here in Congress, but apparently we do not want to offer for our seniors. What we do know from history is two things: One is that low-income seniors, when they have a choice between just Medicare and other plans, they choose the other plans, because they get better value for their money, better health care, and we can make Medicare last longer. The other point is the recent study that showed when you compare 20 years of Medicare costs against the 20 years of Congress' health care plans and that of our Federal employees, the Medicare plan provided less health care at a higher increase in costs than the private plans that Members of Congress rely upon that we are going to start offering, where possible, for seniors, where we have got more health care and the costs did not increase as much. If we want to be responsible about adding senior prescription costs for our seniors, we also have to be responsible about giving them the reforms to make Medicare better and make it last longer, because if we accept proposals like this, frankly, we are going to hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare, not extend it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. In the same setting, CBO estimates the premiums for fee-for-service Medicare may go down by $10 a month, or, at most, increase by $3 a month. It is much less variation than the CMS study that is cited here tonight. The fact of the matter is that without some reforms to make Medicare better and last longer, premiums for taxpayers will go up and the whole system is going, frankly, to go bankrupt sooner. I think one thing we share as Democrats and Republicans is wanting to try to find some way where we can make Medicare better and last longer. I do think that, despite our philosophical differences, we have some common ground in that area.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here we go again, trying to scare our seniors, privatizing, ending Medicare as we know it, all the phrases the pollsters have used and tested to make sure that we get a partisan message out rather than a drug plan for our seniors. The truth of the matter is if we were to adopt this proposal tonight, Medicare would go bankrupt sooner. We would be adding the prescription drug plan that we seriously need, but we would not make any changes making Medicare better and last longer so that the next generation would have a Medicare system they can count on. The fact of the matter is we are not trying to end Medicare as we know it. We are trying to create it as Congress knows it, as Members of Congress have in the health plans and choices we have today. The fact of the matter is that there is no effect on Medicare entitlement by the House plan. Seniors will have entitlement to defined benefits just the way they do today. They will have access to traditional fee-for-service Medicare all throughout the country. What they will have when we defeat this proposal, as we will later, is something they do not have today, which is a choice of Medicare plans, health care plans that are more to what they need, not what Washington needs, one that suits a changing senior population. Seniors, as my colleagues know, some of them are in very good health. Some of the seniors in my district have episodes in one- time, two-time types of illnesses. They have to treat other illnesses as they get older and move into more chronic care areas where it is a continual fight for a healthy life. Having the types of choices the Members of Congress have, the types of health care plans we think are good enough for our families, but apparently some do not think are good enough for our seniors to have, those types of choices, I think our seniors deserve that. More importantly, without these changes, without these improvements to make Medicare last longer and make it a better plan for seniors, we are simply bankrupting it sooner. We are abdicating our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We are not doing the right thing for seniors. My thought is if someone promises you something that seems too good to be true, it usually is. Being responsible and adding a prescription plan that is affordable for future generations and improving Medicare in a way that keeps the costs down for future taxpayers, that is the responsible way of helping our seniors. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes Nos. 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, and 531 during the week of September 30 through October 2. Had I been present, I would have voted the following: Rollcall vote No. 524: Sandlin Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1--``no''; rollcall vote No. 525: Pallone Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308--``no''; rollcall vote No. 526: H. Res. 357--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 527: Dicks Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2691--``no''; rollcall vote No. 528: Case Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1--``no''; rollcall vote No. 529: Davis (AL) Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308--``no''; rollcall vote No. 530: Adoption of the Conference Report on S. 3--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 531: Obey Motion to Instruct on H.R. 2660--``no''; rollcall vote No. 532: H. Con. Res. 274--``yes''; rollcall vote No. 533: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1--``no''; and rollcall vote No. 534: Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1--``no.''

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make two points: one, to be in strong support of this conference report. Homeland security in this country is a massive challenge. This is a huge Nation, with so many risks. Yet we have put billions of dollars, unprecedented dollars, toward those risks. There is no question we are safer, we are, or more prepared, more focused on homeland security than ever before, and I support the chairman's efforts, which have just been dedicated to making our country safer. This bill moves that forward. My second point is in support of that raised by my colleague from Houston (Mr. Green). We are having a serious problem of understaffing of the port of entry at the Bush Intercontinental Airport. It is not simply inconvenient. It is an intolerable line through Customs. It is a disruption of trade. We are losing jobs and business in the region as a result. This bill helps provide the resources. I thank the chairman for the help to address those problems. We are meeting with the agency again tomorrow to focus their attention on this important need. We are hopeful they will listen carefully.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, they say you make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give. By that measure, A.C. Barger of Centreville, Texas, lived a very rich life. He was a Korean War veteran and a successful businessperson. I knew him when I first ran for the State legislature. And, honestly, without his help and his leadership, I would not be serving in Congress today. More than that, he gave back to his community every day of his life. He served on the Trinity River Authority, was a member of the Silver Haired Legislature, was director of the Leon County Crime Stoppers, and he founded and was commander of the local VFW post. He loved children, and so he was Santa on the Square for 17 years and for the senior citizens. He started the Leon County Career Day and founded the Leon County Drill Team. He was selected man of the year. He just gave and gave and gave. A.C. recently passed away. I know his wife, Darlene, daughters and family, and all will miss him. Our Nation, our State of Texas, our community, is better for A.C.'s life. He is a national treasure and will be missed.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague from Houston's strong advocacy for light rail, but I am afraid that at this late date this amendment is at best immaterial and perhaps, I think, undermines the voices of the voters in our Houston region. Today on the House floor we are rehashing a delegation disagreement about the need for a referendum that has been really rendered moot. As we speak, a referendum on light rail is being held, scheduled for just a few weeks from now. For more than a year, the community has undergone and continues a detailed and highly public debate about the scope and the merits of light rail for the Houston region. Seemingly every corner in every neighborhood and every party interested in this issue has offered input, and soon an informed electorate will head to the polls to make their voices known about this issue. Who in our region would dispute that this has been a healthy debate on an important issue that will impact the region for decades to come? It has been a welcomed debate based solely because of existing language in Federal law. But under this amendment today, what we will tell Houston voters is, if they approve light rail, it can go forward. If they reject light rail, it can go forward as well. We have made this referendum meaningless. On the eve of this election to attempt to nullify or dismiss this very healthy public referendum it will have the effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Houston area voters who simply wish to have their voices heard. Let us trust the voters. We certainly have the choice of who should represent them in Congress. We need to let the referendum go forward and let it matter. The voters deserve no less.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the words ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 126, lines 15 and 16, and beginning with the words ``the prohibition'' on page 126, line 20 through ``2512(a)(1)'' on line 23 on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with you the personal motto of Deputy Constable John David Garcia, a brave law enforcement officer from Magnolia, Texas, who tragically lost his life in the line of duty one week ago today. ``Always do right. This will gratify some, and astonish the rest.'' These words were written on the back of a Magnolia Deputy Constable's ``officer trading card.'' What make these words so special are not only the meaning, but also the fact that this officer lived by them each day that he protected and served the people of Texas. Garcia was killed in a tragic car accident, on July 17, 2003 while patrolling just outside the city of Magnolia in Montgomery County, Texas. Born July 25, 1969, Deputy Garcia was a young officer who began his career in law enforcement in 1997, and had been with Precinct 5 since 1999. Everyone will remember John David Garcia differently. To some, he will be remembered as one of the finest officers in Constable David Hill's precinct--always giving 110 percent. All of Deputy Garcia's fellow law enforcement officers will remember him as a person who was eager and willing to serve, especially with his service to the Hispanic community in the area. Most importantly, he is known as a loving husband, father, son, and friend. Deputy Garcia leaves behind his wife, Shannon, and 14-year-old daughter, Patricia. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends during this time. Deputy Garcia's dedication and values are reflected in his personal creed and the life that creed embodied. Mr. Speaker, please join me today in honoring the life and service of Deputy John David Garcia. All residents of Montgomery County, Texas and the 8th Congressional District are grateful for his service and dedication.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time and the ability to subdivide as necessary to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Trade Subcommittee and one of the leading voices of trade in Congress.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill just considered.

Mr. BRADY of Texas

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has played a leading role in expanding markets around the world for American companies.