Gene Green

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Cover the Uninsured Week where we focus our attention on the many health care problems confronting Americans without health insurance. This evening I returned to Washington from Houston after participating in a symposium, at St. Joseph's Christus Hospital, on the uninsured. St. Joseph's and Sisters of Charity have for decades served both the uninsured and the insured in the Houston area. Some of the most innovative and lifesaving research and treatment developments are being discovered in our backyard. The problem is that too many of our neighbors cannot access these lifesaving treatments because they lack health insurance. Currently 31.2 percent of adult Texans are living without health insurance, more than any other State in this country. The growing number of uninsured in this country is truly a problem for all Americans. The uninsured often use the emergency room as their primary source of health care, which increases health care costs for all Americans. Americans without health insurance are less likely to seek preventive health care and only get care once their health problems reach emergency proportions. In fact, nearly 40 percent of the uninsured adults skip a recommended medical test and half of those people have not received care for a serious health problem in the last year. I hope that Cover the Uninsured Week will result in a renewed debate about the serious health care problems that we face in our country and the actions we must take to ensure Americans access to quality health care. But we are increasingly going in the wrong direction. Uninsured, particularly children, have taken such a huge cut in the children's health care initiative program, the CHIPs program. I know in my State of Texas alone we have lost at least 107,000 children from CHIPs because of State budget problems. I am sure that problem is around the country with all our States. As we have learned in the past, a rush to enact flawed policy is arguably just as bad as enacting no policy at all. A prime example is the new Medicare discount drug cards that are giving our seniors too little benefits and too many frustrations. This card was created from a flawed Medicare prescription drug bill that does not provide prescription drug coverage until 2006 and creates a huge gap in coverage forcing seniors to pay all their drug costs between $2,250 to $3,600. Therefore, it is no surprise that I had doubts about our seniors' ability to utilize this first step, the discount drug card. I worried about seniors' access to information about the various cards and their ability to get reliable data from which to make an informed decision. Yet with great fanfare, Medicare released a Web site to provide just this information and allow seniors to compare the drug prices offered by the cards. That is precisely where the confusion began. The Houston Chronicle recently published an article detailing just how confusing this drug card is for seniors. In fact, the author found that the drug card was more confusing than preparing your income taxes or dealing with an insurance company regarding a hospital bill. I think this article sheds important light on the frustrations seniors are facing right now. I submit this article for printing in the Record. [From the Houston Chronicle, May 4, 2004] Medicare Drug Discount Cards Explained, Sort of (By Jim Shea) The first thing seniors need to find out about the new Medicare prescription drug discount cards is if they are eligible. This will not be easy. Doing your taxes is easy. Trying to straighten out a hospital bill with the insurance company is easy. Explaining the infield-fly rule is easy. Figuring out if you qualify for a discount card is, well, let me try to put it in context. Beginning this week, seniors who are thinking of applying for the card can call for information. To handle the anticipated volume, the government has hired 1,000 ``benefit advisers.'' This sounds pretty good until you do the math: Problem: How many times does 1,000 (government bureaucrats) go into 12.5 million (confused Medicare recipients who may call)? Answer: Enough times to boost ``death by on-hold music'' to the top of the mortality charts. Next, let's explore the matter of choosing which of the 28 government-approved private companies you should get your discount card from. To make this choice, the government suggests you compare such things as drug availability and price before signing with a provider. Seems like reasonable advice, except for one little hitch. The discount card company you join is under no restriction to maintain the price that enticed you to join in the first place. In fact, it doesn't even have to guarantee it will continue to carry the drugs you need. In private business this practice is known as bait and switch. In Republican-controlled Washington these days, it is known as a benefit. If this provision seems a little one-sided, a little too big-business friendly, consider this: Even if you are baited and switched and generally hosed all over, you are prohibited from moving to another discount card company until your mandatory one-year commitment is up. I mean, you get better terms from the Gambinos. In fairness, seniors at the low-income end of the spectrum who manage to escape the registration process without contracting a terminal case of phone ear will benefit from the program. They qualify for an annual subsidy of $600, which if they are smart, they will use to purchase round-trip bus tickets to drug-stores in Canada. Seniors at the high-income end of the spectrum, who own the right stocks, will also make out well. To everyone else, let me just say that if you can't get your questions answered, give me a call and I will explain the following: The first thing to know about the infield-fly rule is that it only applies if there are less than two outs and . . . The first problem with the Medicare Web site is that a large number of senior citizens do not enjoy or are not proficient with the Internet. Frankly, I do not blame them for being skeptical about providing sensitive financial information such as their monthly income or other indicators of their financial situation. Yet even if our seniors are willing to go through all the steps on the Medicare Web site, the information generated is too confusing to help our seniors make a truly informed choice regarding their discount drug card. My staff and I attempted to put together a simple document to help seniors in our district easily understand the choices before them, yet it did not take long for us to realize there is nothing simple about this card. One zip code in my district had 12 participating cards; yet a neighboring zip code under the Web site had zero participating cards. It is hard enough for a senior to determine what cards serviced their zip code. For example, a senior would also have to figure out if her pharmacy accepted that card and if her drugs were considered preferred under that card. If that is not difficult enough, then that senior would have to compare that card to all the other cards in her area, for example, the one that had 12 with the neighboring zip code that had zero. Unfortunately, the story gets worse for our seniors. After spending the time, energy, and brain power to choose the best card, seniors are not even guaranteed that the companies will continue to maintain the cost that is on that Web site or access to those particular drugs that the seniors have looked for and they need. The company is under no obligation to maintain its advertised prices or even carry the drugs that they need. If they start losing too much money on a particular drug, they can just cease to offer that coverage during the year. And while all these private companies get escape clauses, Medicare beneficiaries are forced to stay with each card for at least a year. In the end I am afraid we will learn the hard way that this discount drug card is just as bad a deal as the Medicare drug bill that created it.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congressional Vision Caucus, I rise to recognize May as Healthy Vision Month, and to discuss the important recommendations of the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy as a way to prevent blindness and vision loss. Good vision is critical to conducting activities of daily living, is important for language, and affects developmental learning, communicating, working, health and quality of life. Unfortunately, far too many people are at risk for losing their eyesight. More than 80 million Americans have a potentially blinding eye disease, 3 million have low vision, 1.1 million are legally blind, and an additional 200,000 are more severely visually impaired. Despite the fact that half of all blindness can be prevented, far too many people do not access the care they need. If nothing is done, the number of blind and visually impaired individuals will double by 2030. That is why awareness, early diagnosis and prevention are so important. Healthy Vision Month, a component of Healthy People 2010, is a national eye health campaign to raise awareness about the various conditions that can affect eyesight and cause vision loss. Additionally, a coalition of leading eye health experts, including Prevent Blindness America, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lighthouse International, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology, recently released the Vision Problems Action Plan, A National Public Health Strategy, to provide our nation with a framework for preventing vision loss. This report can be accessed at http:// www.preventblindness.org/news/releases/Action_Plan.html This groundbreaking study recommends that, in order to reduce the occurrence of vision loss and its accompanying disabilities, our nation must concentrate our efforts on three priority areas: prevention/public health, access to care and treatment including rehabilitation, and research. Our public health and prevention campaign must ensure that vision programs at the National Eye Institute (NEI) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have the resources they need to improve communication and education campaigns, increase surveillance, epidemiology and prevention research; and implement appropriate programs, policies and systems changes. In order to ensure access to and availability of treatment and rehabilitation services for individuals with vision loss, we must support programs at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that remove barriers and improve access to eye exams currently covered under Medicare, such as diabetic eye exams and glaucoma detection for high risk populations. We must also strengthen the Medicare program to advance coverage for Medicare vision rehabilitation services as provided by orientation and mobility specialists, rehabilitation teachers and low-vision therapists including in patients homes and their environment. Finally, we must bolster our research efforts to improve our understanding of the eye and visual system in health and disease, as well as developing the most appropriate and effective means of prevention, and access to treatment and rehabilitation. This report provides the roadmap we need to raise awareness about vision loss, give individuals the tools they need to prevent it, and give hope to the millions already suffering from vision loss that better treatments for can be found. We would like to thank all of the organizations involved in crafting this report, including the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Optometric Association, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Lighthouse International, the National Alliance For Eye and Vision Research, the National Eye Institute (NEI) and most importantly, Prevent Blindness America. Prevent Blindness America should be commended for spearheading this effort, for bringing together these various groups, and for its almost century-long tradition of preventing vision loss.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to discuss the extreme frustration that our senior citizens are experiencing in applying for this Medicare discount card. This card was created from a flawed Medicare prescription bill, so it is no surprise that our seniors are having problems utilizing it. The Houston Chronicle recently published an article about how confusing this discount card is for seniors. The article found the discount card more confusing than preparing your income taxes or dealing with an insurance company regarding a hospital bill. With great fanfare on Friday, Medicare released a Web site to provide seniors with the ability to compare drug prices. The problem is a lot of our seniors do not have access to the Web site or are not proficient. Even if seniors are willing to go through the steps, it is so confusing that our seniors cannot make a truly informed choice. The story, unfortunately, gets worse for our seniors. They spend time and energy and brain power and choose the best card, and seniors are not even guaranteed that the company will hold up their end of the bargain. The company has no obligation to maintain its advertised price that is on that Web site or even carry those drugs for the full year. And yet our seniors, once they sign up, are stuck for that full year. Also, if they do not sign up now, then they lose their benefits. They get penalized if they do not sign up now. It is a flawed bill, and it is causing problems now.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my gratitude and appreciation for Billie Briggs who has been named a recipient of the Milken Family Foundation's National Educator Award. Ms. Briggs teaches math at Cobb Sixth Grade School in Houston, TX and is regarded as the best though she has only been teaching for eight years. I commend Ms. Briggs for her accomplishment and dedication to her students and to education itself. Ms. Briggs displays her dedication to all students at Cobb Sixth Grade School and throughout HISD by Serving as Sponsor of the Math and Science Club, National Junior Honor Society Advisor, Math Department Chair and by representing secondary-level math on the District Planning and Advisory Committee. In addition, her innovative methods of presenting students with fun projects through which they learn essential skills are praised throughout the education community. I would like to congratulate Billie Briggs on being named one of our nation's top teachers and extend my thanks for her dedication to students in Houston.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2004, I supported H.R. 3783, legislation to provide an extension of the transportation programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). I will also support H.R. 4219 today, but I am extremely frustrated with this process. Here Americans are again, more than two months later, still waiting to see how many crumbs this Administration is willing to throw to our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The fact that Congress must approve another temporary extension of the Highway Trust Fund programs shows the lack of concern in the White House for America's transportation. I support H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users, the product of the hard and tireless work of two well respected members of the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar. I supported H.R. 3550 at the full authorized level of $375 billion through 2009. Chairman Young did pull that out of the air. That number came from the non-partisan career staff at the U.S. Department of Transportation. $375 billion requires indexing the gas tax for inflation, an idea I have supported since my days in the Texas State Legislature. I support that proposal only if every cent we pay at the pump to the Federal government goes to transportation. That is current law. While the Administration refuses to accept non-partisan analysis, we are willing to accept the Senate's $318 billion level, $57 billion less than is necessary for a mobility improvement. Even this bi-partisan legislation is opposed by narrow ideological interests in the White House and House leadership who are blind to the number-one local issue in Houston, Texas--mobility. To satisfy ultra-conservative groups that do not believe in Federal taxes of any kind, the Administration is willing to watch our highways and bridges crumble and rust. The Administration should be more concerned about putting Americans back to work. Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs, with 3.5 million jobs to be generated and sustained through 2009 under H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas. Since roads are not built for free, rational people support a level of Federal tax necessary to pay for national defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and transportation infrastructure. The Administration does not grasp this, and here are some consequences for my constituents. Residents in my community lose an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas each year in congested traffic. That is $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are from Texas A&M's Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Report. Texas mobility is also impacted severely by the fact that 10 cents of every dollar we pay in gasoline taxes goes to other States. I strongly believe that Texas deserves at least 95 percent of Texas gas tax revenue for Texas transportation projects and have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 2208, to that effect. But as we saw during the House vote on the Isakson amendment to H.R. 3550, it is hard to increase our slice of the pie to a fair level unless the pie is big enough to pay for the Nation's needs. Inadequate transportation investment means lost hours spent in traffic, lost job opportunities, and lost lives from unsafe road conditions. I call on the Administration to allow conferees to fully fund H.R. 3550 at the bipartisan level of $375 billion.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to Laverne Hogan, a great leader in the Houston Community, who passed away Thursday, April 22, 2004 at the age of 65. Laverne Hogan's work was instrumental in setting up the first enhanced 9-1-1 system in the state of Texas. Ms. Hogan began work on the system nearly 20 years ago working for then Harris County Commissioner Tom Bass and Houston City Councilmember Eleanor Tinsley. While serving in the Texas state legislature, and later in the U.S. House of Representatives, I worked closely with Ms. Hogan on a number of occasions to improve the 9-1-1 system in Houston and throughout Texas. Just a few of her many accomplishment included being elected to and serving as the Southeast Regional President of the National Emergency Number Association from 1996 to 2000; being appointed to serve as a commissioner for the Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications from 1992 to 1998 by Governor Ann Richards; and at the time of her death, Ms. Hogan was serving as the Executive Director of the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network, the largest 9-1-1 system in Texas, and the third largest in the United States. Laverne Hogan will be greatly missed by all those who knew her, and all those she worked to protect throughout her dedicated career.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto, the victory of the independence for Texas, and the greatest, most diverse State in our Union. Proving its timeless value as a story of political struggle and personal heroism, the Battle of the Alamo has been made into another feature-length motion picture, ``The Alamo,'' by Disney, not doing as well at the box offices we have, but I bet you it is doing well in Texas. I encourage all Americans to learn and relearn this important historical story. On this day I want to enter into the Congressional Record two newspaper articles from the Baytown Sun and the Pasadena Citizen that are newspapers in my district regarding the tremendous devotion and expertise of the San Jacinto reenactors, many of whom are my constituents. These folks have committed tremendous amounts of time and resources to providing an educational service to our community, and some of these reenactors have gone so far as mastering the original Mexican Army drills in the original Spanish, and many were involved in the production of the Disney film ``The Alamo'' as consultants and extras. The story of San Jacinto occurs less than 60 days after the fall of the Alamo. On April 21, 1836, exactly 168 years ago today, approximately 900 Texans and Tejanos of the Texan Army overpowered a large and better trained Mexican Army. I say Texans and Tejanos because the struggle for Texas independence was not between Anglos and Hispanics. For example, noted Tejano patriot Captain Juan Seguin commanded a cavalry company during the final victory at San Jacinto and later became a senator in the Republic of Texas. For those people that have seen the movie ``The Alamo,'' they will remember he was sent out from the Alamo seeking reenforcements and against his wishes was told to stay away so he could live to fight another day at San Jacinto. One of the main proponents of the Texas Revolution was Lorenzo de Zavala, who served in the Mexican Government until the military dictator General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna abolished the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Zavala, a former Mexican citizen, went on to become the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas. Less than 100 years after American patriots threw off the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texans and Tejanos succeeded in a similar struggle against a military dictator, General Santa Anna. In the words of the Texas Declaration of Independence, the people's government had been ``forcibly changed without their consent from a restrictive Federal republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated military despotism.'' As Sam Houston and other Texas delegates signed the Texas declaration of independence, General Santa Anna's army was besieging the Texans and Tejanos at the Alamo in San Antonio. The Alamo fell on the morning of March 6, 1836, when Lieutenant Colonel William Barrett Travis, former Tennessee Congressman David Crockett, and approximately 200 other Texans and Tejano defenders were killed in action. The Mexican Army was full of confidence after their hard-fought victory at the Alamo, and Texan forces were in retreat, but in late April 1836 they chose not to flee to the safety of Louisiana and instead turned to fight on the banks of the bayous outside of Houston, Texas. In fact, the San Jacinto battleground is in the new congressional district that I am receiving. On the afternoon of April 21, 1836, the two armies were camped near one another, but the Mexican Army, confident of its superiority, failed to post guards during their afternoon siesta. They underestimated the determination of the Texan army in its fight for an independent nation and were totally unprepared for the surprise attack. As a result, the nation, and then the State of Texas, was born. Like the American Revolution, the Texan Revolution brought many different people together fighting military oppression. A misconception of the Texas war for independence is that the conflict was a case of Anglos versus Hispanics. But accurate Texas history tells us that Hispanics who had long lived in Texas mostly did not refer to themselves as Mexicans, but instead thought of themselves as Tejanos. Tejanos inhabited Texas long before Mexico existed, and they lived there for the same reason Anglos later moved there, for freedom and productive land. Many folks were happy under Mexican rule until General Santa Anna's forces began plundering areas of Texas, and then Tejanos and Texans both reacted with revolution. It is inspiring to me that many Tejanos joined the fight for independence when the Mexican Government became an exploitive military regime. The brotherhood of freedom can be stronger than the brotherhood of nationality, as Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad, the Alamo, and also along the banks of the San Jacinto River, and in this the government of the Republic of Texas. Like the American patriots in 1776, Texans did not create a perfect State with their independence. It would not be until June 19, or Juneteenth, 1865, that Texas' African American citizens achieved the freedom that is an inalienable human right. Every Juneteenth we remember that struggle for equal rights is long and difficult, and demands our own enduring commitment. On San Jacinto Day we celebrate the achievements of Texan and Tejano patriots, and renew our commitment to preserving our represented government, freedom, and human civil rights. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will include for the Record the two newspaper articles that I previously mentioned. [From the Baytown Sun, Apr. 7, 2004] Re-Enacting History (By Carla Rabalais) ```Let me die in the Alamo. Just let me get shot in there,' I pleaded. But I was a Mexican officer, and no Mexican soldier died inside the Alamo.'' Don Herlitz is a Baytonian, but most of all he is Texan, or Texian, or Mexican captain, depending on the year in which he's operating. Re-enactors aren't strapped to the same calendar that most of us are. They have the privilege of operating in both the past and the present and with Disney's ``The Alamo,'' set for release Friday, local re-enactors like Herlitz will also have a presence in the future. The film stars Dennis Quaid, Billy Bob Thornton and Jason Patric. Already this week three sneak previews have unfurled in Houston. Crowds who lined up for those free seats were greeted by local reenactors ready and willing to talk about their acting experience and field expertise . . . locals like Herlitz and his wife, Marie, Pete Juarez, Allen Hutton, Clabert Menard of Dayton and David Pomeroy of Pasadena. ``That's what we do,'' Marie said. ``We talk to people about Texas history and we show them what it looked like.'' The re-enactment window reveals all history's facts, from the mundane to the explosive, like period clothing, hand-sewn with home-spun cotton; cooking styles, with no electricity, gas or running water; toys and games, which often doubled as useful equipment; and weaponry, including home-fashioned muskets, gunpowder and knives. The common denominator in every category is ``authentic.'' Mexican artillery is one of Herlitz's specialties. He has re-enacted Texas history for almost 20 years, but for the past seven has portrayed a 19th century Mexican soldier. In the Alamo, that expertise earned him an officer's role in Santa Anna's army. ``Many of the re-enactors played both sides during the movie,'' Herlitz said. ``I really wanted to--I even brought my Texian clothes with me--but they wouldn't let me switch. ``That's all right, though,'' he laughed. ``After seven years of shooting at Davy (Crockett), I finally got to die beside him in the next film.'' ``The Alamo'' united many reenactors, but that battleground wasn't their first time together and it certainly wasn't their last. In fact, since ``The Alamo'' completed filming last year, some reenactors have participated in two additional films, including the one Herlitz named. That film is ``Remember the Alamo,'' a documentary that aired on the history Channel this spring. David Pomeroy served as a site resource, re-enactor, and cook--along with his wife, Cait--for the two hour documentary. The business manager of Pomeroy Energy volunteers his time and knowledge for of the San Jacinto Battleground Association and is the author of ``Pasadena: The Early Years.'' ``There are eyewitness accounts and there are myths that enhance the Alamo story,'' he said, ``and in some cases the two contradict. The documentary addresses those historical issues.'' Contradictory accounts of the Alamo were not the only issues re-enactors face as they re-create turning point battles in Texas history. To accurately re-enact, they had to study history from multiple sources, not just American ones. In their study, they came face-to-face with facts they never were taught in grade school. ``The Alamo is a boiling pot of ideas and views,'' and Herlitz, ``You can't just go by what a history book said, because it's tainted by political attitudes. `The Alamo' is a lot broader story and I think those issues will come out more in the director's cut of `The Alamo' '' DVD. ``You see, those men on the inside of the Alamo were trying to create a new republic, and the men on the outside were trying to preserve a young republic. Who the heroes are just depends which side of the wall you're standing on,'' he said. Allen Hutton of Baytown agrees. The pyrotechnician has re- enacted since he was 12 years old and has worked in the entertainment industry with movies like ``American Outlaws'' and ``the Patriot''. In ``The Alamo,'' he portrays both a Mexican first sergeant and a Texian first sergeant. ``As a kid I learned the Alamo was about big, mean, mad Santa Anna against the poor innocent Texians,'' he said. ``But the Mexicans weren't just `bad guys,' they were protecting their country's land. Think of it in modern terms: What would we do if some of Saddam Hussein's guard came here and settled in a town and then said, `This is our land now and you can't control us'? ``I don't want in any way to minimize the sacrifices made by the Texians, but the Mexicans had a side too,'' he said. Herlitz and Hutton filled similar roles in ``The Alamo''. Both were involved in the movie a year before actual filming took place and both were Mexican officers who trained hundreds of extras during three-day boot camps. Herlitz and his wife spent six months camping in a canvas tent, cooking on an open fire, near Dripping Springs, where the movie was filmed. Hutton camped on the set for five months while his wife stayed in Baytown preparing for the birth of their first child. As Mexican officers, the two Baytonians were required to learn maneuvers from an 1830s military guide written in Spanish. Not modern Spanish, not Castilian Spanish, but a colonial Spanish that is now obsolete. Or almost obsolete. An extra who had come from New Mexico recognized the language. His native dialect is a preserved form of colonial Spanish, so he translated the book for the actors and trainers. The drills Herlitz and Hutton learned became second-nature to them. ``I can still tell you the (gun-) loading procedure in proper Spanish,'' said Hutton. During boot camp, they trained hundreds of extras. One of those was Clabert Menard of Dayton, who was singled out for the Texian side as an expert marksman. ``I ended up helping to train about 40 guys under me,'' Menard said. ``The more experienced re-enactors they put next to the stars and told us to keep the other guys from running in front of them.'' Menard, like many of his peers, has re-enacted since his teens. He has represented many characters in his historical career, including World War II soldiers, a French and Indian trader and a Texas Army scout. ``I just want to eat, drink and sleep history,'' he said. ``We can replicate anything, except the fear of death.'' One of his favorite activities is to spend weekends hiking 15 to 20 miles into the Texas wilderness with nothing but his 1820s era gear. He used those items in ``The Alamo'' as well, including two of his homemade weapons, a flintlock musket and French pistol. ``I knew I could depend on my own gear,'' he said. The boot camp involved marching drills and training stations for learning stunt-fighting, horseback riding, ladder manipulation, artillery use and firing orders. The extras weren't the only ones who grew accustomed to the orders, said Herlitz. ``The horses learned what the word `Action!' meant, so whenever they heard it, whether they were supposed to move or not, they took off,'' he said. ``So we had to have new commands for starting the filming, like `Go!' or eventually, `G-o!' '' Herlitz and Hutton recall one moment in their six month experience on ``The Alamo'' set that gripped both their memories. The film's director, John Lee Hancock of Texas City, had been filming the Mexican siege on the Alamo for several nights. But he held back the final attack where the wall would be scaled and the Texian army killed. That would be filmed on the exact anniversary of its occurrence, March 6, at 5:30 a.m. The actors filmed through the night March 5 and into the next morning's hours. But moments before the final siege, the entire set observed 13 minutes of complete silence, one minute for each day of the Alamo siege, in memory of those who lost their lives, both Texian and Mexican. Then at 5:30 a.m., the storming began. ``Whatever hardships we had to deal with during the filming were all worth it right then,'' said Herlitz. ``To be a part of that moment was something I will always remember.'' ``When I do a job, I don't go to seek fame or rub shoulders with stars,'' said Hutton. ``It's just a job and you concentrate on doing it well. But that moment brought it all together. That was as close as I will ever come to experiencing the reality of the Alamo. ``Many of our guys were moved to tears. They were on the Mexican side, and they saw it, too, as part of their heritage.'' Local re-enactors who participated in ``The Alamo'' and other living history events hope that the new movie will have a ripple of positive effects through our state and nation. ``I hope it will get more people excited about history,'' said David Pomeroy. ``Then historical venues will have more response and in turn receive more educational funding.'' ``It's all for the kids,'' said Herlitz. ``As a re-enactor, I believe children don't understand what price was paid for freedom. The fertilizer to the tree of liberty is the blood of the patriots. Someone has to be willing to put their life on the line--for you to have the freedom to go downtown and buy a $200 pair of tennis shoes. The Alamo is an excellent example of the price people were willing to give--the ultimate sacrifice.'' Some children are understanding that concept. ``I never really thought about the Alamo, but when I saw the actual building and stood inside it, it was neat,'' said fourth-grader Cody Fisher. ``A bunch of people were lost there fighting for what they believed in.'' ``There were brothers fighting each other, and whole families coming apart,'' added Cassie Perez, also a fourth grader. ``They wanted freedom.'' ``I think if I had lived back then, and I was a little bit older,'' said Cody, ``I think I would have fought for the Alamo.'' David Pomeroy encourages families to ``See the movie, then come smell the smoke.'' On April 24, a re-enactment of the battle of San Jacinto will be held at the San Jacinto Battleground State Historical Park. This year the re-enactment will be accompanied by a living history festival. Local re-enactors from ``The Alamo'' will be onsite to autograph photos and talk about their filming experience. Festival hours will be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. with the battle re-enactment at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Pfc. Leroy Sandoval Jr., who died while bravely serving our country in Iraq. Pfc. Sandoval was from Houston, Texas and graduated in 2000 from Harvest Christian Academy. He joined the Marines on May 19, 2003 and attended basic training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego. Pfc. Sandoval was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, in Camp Pendleton, California. On March 26, 2004, less than 2 weeks after arriving in Iraq, Pfc. Sandoval suffered a fatal bullet wound in a gunfight between the 600 Marines stationed in Fallujah, Iraq, and rebel insurgents. I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but Pfc. Sandoval's family can be proud knowing that he died a hero while serving his country. His loss will be felt by all of Houston, our state, and our Nation, and I ask that you remember the family in your thoughts and prayers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill that is bipartisanly crafted by both the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member; and they have made the best out of what is a bad situation. The fact that the administration is threatening to veto this legislation at the level of $270 billion shows the irrational negotiating posture of the opponents of infrastructure improvement and investment. I support the $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. And where does that number come from? It comes from the level that the U.S. Department of Transportation says is necessary to improve the mobility in our country. Mr. Chairman, if we do not improve the mobility of our country, just in Houston we lose $2.1 billion every year in productivity in fuel and congestion, and it is getting worse. And these are not my figures. These are figures from the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility study. This highway bill is not pork barrel politics. It makes investment in mobility that the public desperately wants and needs. Our gasoline user fees are for our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them, motorists and truckers. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3550, a bill where our bipartisan Transportation Committee leadership, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar have made the best out of a bad situation. The fact that the administration is threatening to veto this legislation, at the level of $275 billion, shows the irrational negotiating posture of the opponents of infrastructure investment. I support a $375 billion transportation infrastructure bill. Where does that number come from? That is the level that the U.S. Department of Transportation says is necessary to improve mobility in the country. Frankly, I support indexing the gasoline user fee to inflation, a method that is far simpler than having to stop every few miles and dig around for change in the car seat to pay a toll. Under this bill, tolls will too often be the only option available to make infrastructure improvements. The funding level the administration supports barely allows us to tread water, while China, India, Japan, Europe, and other competitors are investing heavily in infrastructure to strengthen their economies. It is frustrating to be confined by inadequate transportation funding during tough economic times because infrastructure investment brings major employment and development benefits. Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs. At least 3.5 million jobs would be generated and sustained through 2009 under the $375 billion level in the original H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas. Under this bill, we will get significantly less employment and economic activity than that. The administration and self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives in Congress do not seem to understand that residents in my community are idling away an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas this year in congested traffic. Just in Houston, we lose $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are according to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Report. This highway bill is not pork barrel politics; it makes investments in mobility that public desperately want and need. Our gasoline user fee funds our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them--motorists and truckers. This bill has important projects for our area in Houston and across Texas, particularly U.S. 90, Clinton Drive, and a Harris County Freight Railroad Corridors and Urban Mobility Program. This railroad project in particular needs more study and involvement by all stakeholders before we get to implementation, but the problem of grade crossings and mobility does need to be addressed urgently. Some important policy provisions regarding transportation conformity are also included in this legislation, such as making the conformity process a four year cycle, voluntary limiting of conformity planning to 10 years, and allowing a 12-month grace period in the event of a conformity lapse. I do not believe that these provisions solve all our problems, and I would hope that the cosponsors of our legislation in the conference will include further necessary improvements to the conformity process. Our area of Houston is struggling to meet Clean Air Act requirements by statutory deadlines, and I think we will have success. But to have our mobility crippled by losing transportation funding due to a confusing and contradictory process would be the worst public policy disaster in decades for our area. Looking ahead to a conference with the other body, I want to congratulate the bipartisan Transportation Committee for its best work in a bad situation. The closer we get our funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended level of $375 billion, the better off our economy will be.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the problem we have with America's unemployed workers. My Texas colleague talks about how outsourcing is so good, and offshoring, well, I know it is not good in the area I represent because it is a blue collar district. For years and years we have suggested to our young people to go and get a high-tech skill so they can become a computer programmer, so they will not have to be a machine shop owner or a machinist, that they can go into the new economy. All of a sudden now we are finding out that that new economy, if you are making $45,000 a year in the United States, you are having to compete with someone around the world who is happy to make $15,000 a year with your same level of education. So we do have a problem. Tomorrow marks the end of March and the 3-month period since the temporary extended unemployment compensation program began phasing out. During this last 3-month period, over 1 million American workers have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits and have been unable to receive additional help. There are 72,000 unemployed workers in my own State of Texas that have exhausted their benefits. There is no comparable figure in more than 30 years when this country has had so many unemployed workers exhausting their benefits. Despite these undisputable facts, the administration and our Republican colleagues refuse to extend this important program, saying economic growth will yield job creation. Well, it has not for the last 3 years. Every indicator out there disputes this logic and tells the same story: This country is facing a jobless recovery. If it is a jobless recovery, it is not really a recovery where I come from. Mr. Speaker, these indicators are bad enough, but, unfortunately, there is another story behind them that makes the outlook even worse. The unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent, but the true story is that rate does not take into account the 2.8 million Americans who have given up looking for a job and left the labor force altogether. These Americans are just as unemployed as those counted by the Labor Department; and if we include them in our statistics, the true unemployment rate stands at 7.4 percent. When we look at the job growth figures, we see that 21,000 jobs were created last month. The true story, however, is that none of these jobs were in the private sector. Furthermore, the country needs to add about 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. If we count the net 2.3 million jobs that have been lost to this country since this administration took office and add the 4.7 million jobs that are needed to be created since then to support our population growth, we have a 7 million job gap in the labor market. The measly job growth we have seen in recent months will not even begin to put a dent in that job gap; and, to make matters worse, the rolls of our long-term unemployed workers are growing. Technically, workers who have been out of work for more than 6 months are defined as long-term unemployed. Six months also happens to be the maximum length of regular unemployment benefits. Therefore, most economists consider the number of long-term unemployed workers as indicative of the need for temporary unemployment benefits. If my Republican colleagues need further proof of our need for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits, I would encourage them to look at the number of long-term unemployed workers in this country. In each of the past 3 months, almost 1.9 million unemployed workers have been counted as long-term unemployed. America's long-term unemployed represent 23 percent of the country's total unemployed workers, at least those who are counted. Moreover, the level of long-term unemployment is three times what it was when the recession began. Job growth in this country is, without question, weaker than any other post-World War II recovery period. As each week of this jobless recovery goes by, 80,000 more workers exhaust their unemployment benefits and have nowhere to turn. A recent Congressional Budget Office study shows that, without these benefits, unemployed Americans double their chances of entering poverty and lacking health insurance. Mr. Speaker, the need for an extension of unemployment benefits has never been greater. In the absence of true job creation, it is imperative that these benefits be extended. Again, when we see outsourcing, offshoring happening in the high-tech community, and we see the continual hemorrhaging of blue collar jobs being lost, our American worker's income security and their health depend on that extension.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Texas colleague for yielding me the time, and I have a prepared statement I would like to place into the Record. It is interesting, all of our constituents think we talk about funny money here in Washington when it is really their money, but I look at our budget and see there are funny budgets; and I need to remind my colleagues of the prescription drug budget $400 billion last year, that could be as much as $150 billion above that, and the seniors around the country are rejecting it simply because it is not a quality program. So I worry about what we are seeing. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican majority breaks a number of long-standing promises to my Texas community, seniors, students and veterans. The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus. This continual use of Social Security to fund the administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable, and even prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest we cut entitlement programs or raise the age of Social Security. The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind. Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to provide any increase in the maximum Pell grants which 313,832 students in Texas universities use to help finance their education. The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 billion in funds for the State Children's Health Initiative Program, SCHIP, to expire. Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children are dropped from the SCHIP program, and we are going to see it even more. The budget breaks our promise to veterans, as just discussed, by $1.3 billion, short of what we need for veterans health care. The Vietnam Veterans of America called the Bush budget an insult to veterans. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative and in opposition to the Republican budget resolution. The Republican majority breaks long-standing promises to Texas communities, seniors, students and veterans. The budget breaks our promise to Texas seniors by spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009. This continual use of the Social Security to fund the Administration's deficits and tax cuts is not sustainable and has prompted Alan Greenspan to suggest that we cut entitlement programs or raise the Social Security age. The budget breaks our promise to Texas students by providing $8.8 billion below the authorized level for No Child Left Behind programs. Despite the rising costs of college tuition, this budget fails to provide any increase in the maximum Pell grant awards, which 313,832 students in Texas universities use to help finance their education. The budget breaks our promise to Texas children by allowing $1 billion in funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to expire. Already, hundreds of thousands of Texas children have been dropped from the State's CHIP program, and this budget will only cause more Texas children to lose health insurance during a time when health care costs are rising rapidly. The budget breaks our promise to Texas veterans by providing $1.3 billion less than what is needed for veterans' health care programs. The Vietnam Veterans of America have called the Bush budget ``an insult to veterans.'' The budget breaks our promise to Texas communities by cutting homeland security funding at a time of increased security needs. Houston is the only city in the U.S. to meet all fifteen Federal threat criteria, yet this budget provides no resources to address a shortage in first responder or port security funding. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and support the Democratic alternative, which funds this country's priorities in a fiscally- responsible manner.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I place into the Record a statement concerning the majority's defense budget and also an article from The Washington Post that discusses the lack of armor for our troops in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with concerns about the Department of Defense budget proposal. Last fall before my colleagues and I voted on the Iraq Supplemental, we were told that there was money included in the bill to provide all our troops with necessary life-saving equipment. Several months after passing the supplemental, however, reports started coming back from Iraq that there were still troops serving in Iraq that did not have Kevlar vests, and there were still humvees that did not have armor to protect the troops riding in them from bullets or shrapnel. Last week, one year after the war started, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported that there are still a number humvees without bulletproof armor. Then on Sunday, The Washington Post printed this article about Virginia Guard Units serving in Iraq that were wearing make-shift body armor their friends and family had sent them from home up until January of this year, 10 months after the start of the war. I would like to submit this article for the Record. Even more startling is the fact that these same troops are still driving around in humvees that have armor only because they were fortunate enough to have extra supplies at a machine shop on their base. The safety of our troops should not depend on whether or not they have extra supplies on their base. The Pentagon recently asked Congress to shift $190 million in FY04 money to pay for kits to armor humvees being used in Iraq, however this will not equip all the vehicles in Iraq and there is no money for this in the FY05 budget request. I am troubled when I look over the Defense budget. According to the 2005 Defense budget request there is money to double our investment in a missile defense system, but no money to armor the vehicles our troops drive in Iraq. The defense budget states that a key part of the military's ability to meet its strategic goals is providing the best possible equipment to accompany any mission. If this is the case, why did it take so long to provide body armor for our troops, and why are there still unarmored humvees driving around Iraq? This administration says that there is no immediate need for a supplemental to fund operations in Iraq, but the budget leaves shortfalls in protecting our troops serving there. Our troops are in a dangerous place, doing a dangerous job, and I hope the administration will correct these problems. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 21, 2004] 2 Million Miles, Makeshift Armor and No Fatalities; A Virginia Guard Unit Survives Iraq's Dangers (By Karl Vick) Of the many perilous things an American can do in Iraq, the most perilous of all is driving a U.S. military vehicle in a line of other U.S. military vehicles, up and down a highway, day after day. The men and women of the 1032nd Transportation Company, a unit of the Virginia National Guard, have been doing just that for almost a year, logging more miles than any other unit in Iraq--about 2.3 million so far, almost all of them on the potholed asphalt of the region north and west of Baghdad known as the Sunni Triangle. That the 1032nd came through the past 12 months without a fatality is regarded as exceptional good fortune by its members, a motley, good-natured group that includes truckers, students and at least one police officer, one iron worker, one cell biologist and one bartender. ``We get outside the gate, we keep it to the floor,'' said Spec. Jeff Combs of Jonesville, in far southwest Virginia, near the Kentucky and Tennessee lines. ``So far we've been really, really fortunate.'' The absence of fatalities is all the more remarkable, the truckers say, because for the first three-quarters of their tour, the drivers, gunners and mechanics routinely traversed the deadliest sections of Iraq without bulletproof vests. When a gunman in a speeding black BMW fired an AK-47 assault rifle into the chest of Spec. Nathan Williams, the slug was stopped by a steel plate Williams had purchased with his own money and then fitted into a Kevlar vest designed to stop only shrapnel. Otherwise, the high-velocity slug would have entered his heart. ``They were $3 apiece,'' said Capt. Joe Breeding, hefting one of the crudely cut, quarter-inch-thick steel plates a colleague had sent from a workshop in Virginia. The shortage of body armor for U.S. troops recently emerged as an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has cited the shortage as evidence that President Bush cares too little about the welfare of the troops. Bush TV ads, in turn, have accused Kerry of casting a vote that would have deprived combat troops of body armor. But it has been a matter of lively discussion for almost a year in Iraq, especially among the Guard and Reserve units that were called up to play support roles but found themselves in the thick of a guerrilla war. ``It was disappointing to me to see units that just got here had vest, and we had been here six months doing without proper protection,'' said Spec. Rodney Pilson from Stewart. ``Something like that makes you feel kind of segregated.'' Breeding, the unit's commanding officer, said the 1032nd arrived in Kuwait last year largely ignorant of the state of the art in personal protection. The Kevlar vests they carried from Virginia were designed to stop shrapnel or a low- velocity slug from a handgun. But they lacked the specially designed boron carbide ceramic plates that can absorb a bullet from an assault rifle. Too few had been ordered before the war, senior commanders told congress last fall, and first priority was given to dismounted infantry, the foot soldiers most vulnerable in a battlefield setting. But within weeks, war turned to occupation, and the most basic assumptions were flipped upside down. ``When we got here, it wasn't as bad. The war was still going on,'' said Spec. Cliff Vance, the bartender, from Wise. An enemy that seldom chose to stand and fight preyed mostly on military vehicles, employing booby traps and ambushes using small arms. Transportation outfits such as the 1032nd, which made two runs a day through Baghdad to and from Nasiriyah, found themselves on the new front line with equipment designed for the rear. ``We realize they had a limited number'' of ceramic- equipped vests, Breeding said. ``One thing I didn't think they realized is how the transporters are on the front line, too.'' Some things the truckers could change themselves. Makeshift armor was cut from steel plates at the machine shops in the sprawling base set up on a former Iraqi airfield outside Balad, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. Driver-side doors got steel plating, later replaced by sheets of an alloy called Armox. Kevlar-coated ballistic blankets were laid on cab floors. Cargo Humvees became battle wagons, their back ends enclosed in steel that protected the soldier manning the .50- caliber machine gun mounted in the rear. ``You came here and basically you took care of yourself,'' said Spec. David Howard. The improvised armor made the company, which is due to leave Iraq this month, the envy of incoming units. Sgt. 1st Class Kelvin Davenport, who will return to work as a sniper on the police SWAT team in Bristol, said the newcomers ask, ``When are you leaving? Can we get your vehicles?'' There was a limit, however, to how much the truckers could do to armor their own bodies. The Kevlar vests had no ceramic plates, and there was no space between layers of Kevlar to slip in an improvised plate. Vests with slots to accommodate plates arrived in June, but the boron carbide ceramic plates did not begin making their way to the unit until November. The entire company was finally outfitted in January. ``We got that stuff after we got off the road,'' said Sam Stone, a mechanic and part-time driver, shaking her head. The unit was in fact still driving in January, but by then much of the military transport was being handled by a civilian firm, Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of Halliburton. The 1032nd provided the armed escort, sending its makeshift battle wagons ahead to scout for roadside bombs--Davenport spotted more than 30 himself--and bringing up the rear, still the most dangerous position. ``KBR was better equipped than we were,'' said Stone, a student from Chatham. ``We used to joke about that. All their drivers had actual bulletproof vests.'' Many of the unit's 105 drivers recount close calls. More than a dozen of their trucks were damaged by roadside explosives. But only five people were wounded, and all five returned to duty. Two of the wounded were hit not by roadside bombs but by mortar attacks around the 1032nd's original quarters at the corner of Texas and David Letterman Drive on the Balad base. ``I think that was scarier than driving,'' said Pilson, idling with his fellow drivers in the shade of a eucalyptus the other day. ``You wake up in the night to a boom, your heart stops, man. You're supposed to feel safe here.'' The men beside him nodded and chuckled. National Guard units grapple with a reputation as the military's second- class citizens, frequently accorded less respect than reservists. But the sense of family so often found in shared adversity has a more familiar feeling in a unit where the youngest member is 19 and the oldest 59. The only death in the 1032nd this year was from cancer. It killed a man who had survived Vietnam. ``We've been lucky,'' said Spec. Michael Bauman, 40, a construction worker from Hillsville. ``I mean, you consider over 2 million miles in this area, we've been lucky. ``It's the heat that kills you.''

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise first and foremost to thank the men and women of the Armed Forces serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan and literally all over the world. I supported the resolution to authorize the war, and in the supplemental request I continue to support those troops and their work, but I must express my continued concerns about the safety of the troops and the haphazard way the administration has proceeded in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have no end game in sight. Our exit strategy is murky, and our efforts to help this fledgling democracy seem to be going nowhere. When this war began last year, it became clear our troops do not have the life-saving body armor and vehicle armor they needed. Even with the passage of the Iraq supplemental last November, there are still too many soldiers at risk, and we are experiencing increasing reports of street fire, mines and ambushes aimed at our troops. It is unconscionable that they continue to lack the protective gear they need. On yesterday's evening news, Houston's CBS affiliate KHOU reported there are still a number of Humvees in Iraq without bulletproof armor, and I will include for the Record the news report. In fact, there are Humvees on the streets of Houston that have more safety features than the ones being used by our troops, according to the report. These vehicles are intended to transport soldiers and defend them in the war zone, and the last thing we should hear is soldiers' complaints that their family's sedans are safer than the military's soft-sided Humvees. A year ago today, we started a war to remove an evil man from power; but in doing so, the lives of our troops are unnecessarily jeopardized by sending them into harm's way without proper armor and underequipped vehicles. Our troops are doing a dangerous job, and I hope the administration will correct these problems. [From KHOU.com, Mar. 17, 2004] Up Close: Military Leadership Little Soft on Vehicle Protection (By Dave Fehling) As we approach the 1-year anniversary of the war in Iraq, we're learning more about an additional risk to our troops overseas. Thin-skinned vehicles not designed for combat are currently being driven by hundreds of soldiers in Iraq right now. And several service men have been killed, including one from League City. 11 News looks at the shortage of armor and the rush to fix what some call a deadly miscalculation. Last October, 20-year-old paratrooper John Hart phoned his parents from Iraq and whispered words that shook them. He felt exposed in his softsided humvee, the same kind in which friends already had been killed or wounded in ambushes. The vehicle offered less protection than the family sedan. ``We were thinking about how best to address it,'' says John's father, Brian Hart, ``when we got news the following week that John had been killed in an ambush.'' John Hart was shot to death in his unarmored humvee, along with Lieutenant David Bernstein, fifth in his class at West Point. Diane Elliott lives in fear that her husband is also an easy target in his unarmored humvee. ``A bullet came through the humvee and through the back of his seat,'' she says. ``He said there was a bullet hole, just barely missed his head.'' That was the second time Army reserve Captain Roger Elliott escaped death in a canvas covered humvee in Baghdad. The first time he got hit by a homemade bomb. ``They said it hit the humvee, rolled off and hit the ground, and it blew a big hole in the ground,'' says Elliot. ``Here's the humvee, and screws and nails and everything flying, just goes right through it.'' Captain Elliott's Purple Heart arrived in an ammo box, along with his wife's wedding anniversary gifts. Bullets, nails and shrapnel go right through the vast majority of humvees in Iraq because they were designed to transport soldiers, not to protect them. A factory near Cincinnati is the only plant in the world that produces armored humvees. ``This is what we end up with. Fully armored doors, armored perimeter, turret,'' says a factory worker. ``Underbody capable of defeating a landmine.'' And windows that stop bullets. It's the kind of protection soldiers are asking for, and dying for. ``It's maddening,'' says Brian Hart. ``It's absolutely maddening.'' Maddening for John Hart's father, for Roger Elliot's wife. ``How could you not know you need armored humvees when you're going into a war?'' asks Diane Elliott. And maddening for the parents of Texas National Guardsman Nathan Feenstra who says their son was sent to Iraq with old soft sided humvees, and without new bullet proof vests that have saved an untold number of lives since the war began. ``Basically, they're saying they've done all they can for now, `It's too late for your unit, but we are preparing for the next group going into Iraq,' '' says John Feenstra. ``I said that's not good enough.'' The Feenstras write letters to military leadership, and pray their son comes home alive. Brian Hart is pressing congress to press the Army to speed up production. The plan in Ohio is boosting output. But some lawmakers are outraged. And the republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee called the shortage of armored humvees ``unacceptable.'' The Army Vice Chief of Staff told Congress in September more armored humvees weren't sent to Iraq because ``To be honest, we just didn't expect this level of violence.'' Back in May there were only about 235 armored humvees in Iraq. The army now wants more than 3,000. But it's expected to take until summer of 2005 before the Army gets all the beefed up humvees it wants. To Brian Hart who made a promise to his son and to the soldiers who brought home his son's body, that's not good enough. The army says it's rushed all available armored humvees to Iraq, and is sending 6,000 kits to toughen up standard humvees. It's also speeding up production of new armored vehicles. Meanwhile many soldiers are improvising, using steel plates, rubber mats and sandbags to harden their humvees against attacks.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the continual frustration that Americans feel when it comes to their jobs, or lack of jobs. The American people are getting mixed messages when it comes to the economy, and we have a responsibility to give it to them straight and put in place the measures that are going to help. The administration tells the American people that the economy is growing, and we hear today that a new survey shows that 28 percent of employers plan to add workers, but we have yet to see such strong growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates only 4.8 percent of the gross domestic product growth in 2003, providing strong suggestions that the growth touted by the administration is not sustainable. Not only is that growth not sustainable, the American people are not feeling the effects of it. My Republican colleagues will say, but the unemployment rate dropped in January. However, by stressing the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent, they fail to tell the rest of the story that paints the true picture of the job market in our country. Job growth is not following economic growth. Profits are up, but job creation is not. It is that simple. The working-age population has increased by 2.4 percent and needed an additional 4.7 million jobs since March of 2001 just to support these new workers. Instead, jobs since then have decreased by 2.35 million, creating a gap of 7 million jobs lost in the job market. There are not enough jobs to even sustain the growth in population, much less provide employment for all of our workers affected by plant closures, company downsizing, and the outsourcing. Each month, 125,000 additional Americans want to enter the workforce. These people are not to be confused with our currently unemployed workers; rather, these are Americans who have graduated from high school or college. And, the 112,000 jobs created in January do not even compensate enough for these new workers, much less help absorb the 2.35 million Americans who have lost their jobs since this recession began. To make matters worse, the economy only created 21,000 jobs in February, and an additional 392,000 civilian workers left the workforce last month. However, the Labor Department's monthly unemployment statistics do not count that 392,000 unemployed workers. They do not count any of the 2.8 million Americans who constitute the ``missing labor force,'' or those who have given up looking for jobs or left the labor market all together. Sure, the unemployment rate can drop if we do not count those who have already left the labor force. But, if we include these workers into the unemployment statistics, the country's current unemployment rate jumps to 7.4 percent. And what have we done for those who have found themselves laid off or unemployed? The administration cut taxes and said tax cuts will create 306,000 jobs each month. Yet, in 8 months, a total of only 294,000 jobs have been created, not the 2,448,000 that this administration said tax cuts would create. Just a little short. If the Republican majority is not going to create jobs, they should at least help the country's unemployed by extending unemployment benefits. Again this year, Congress left town before Christmas without providing unemployed Americans with a 13-week temporary extension of their benefits. It is March now, and Congress still has failed to act on this important benefit to unemployed Americans. The need for extended unemployment benefits is real. This is the longest recession without job recovery since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting data in 1939, since recovering from the Great Depression. This is the longest recession without job recovery. We do not need statistics to demonstrate that need. To those of us who hear from and visit with our unemployed constituents, it is equally clear. We continue to hear the hollow argument that our recent economic growth mitigates the need for jobless benefits. There has not been job growth in our country. I would like to talk about a conversation I had with a constituent of mine. Let us call her Mrs. Crawford. Mrs. Crawford, single and 60 years old, was laid off quite some time ago. In January she joined the 80,000 Americans who lose their unemployment benefits each week. I asked Mrs. Crawford if the administration's economic policies have helped her, and she told me that not only did she not receive any tax cuts that were supposed to stimulate the economy, the so-called economic growth as a result of these tax cuts has not increased her job opportunities. The administration will tell her that the economy is growing, and we do not need extension on jobless benefits, but they have conveniently left out the fact that the temporary extension was created to deal with the very economic conditions we face today. In fact, the program was created when unemployment stood at 5.7 percent and the country had lost 2 million jobs. Now, the unemployment rate is at 5.6 and the country has lost a net of 2.35 million jobs. And with 80,000 Americans losing their unemployment benefits each week with no jobs to go to, there is no doubt about the need for an extension. The Senate voted last month, 58 to 39, to support an extension. Let us stop sending the American people these symbolic, yet mixed messages of support, and pass a clean bill extending unemployment benefits. If the majority of this Congress is not going to talk straight on the economy, the least they can do is provide Americans with temporary relief.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5 minutes out of order.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Broadcast Decency and Enforcement Act of 2004, which is a bipartisan product of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Both the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), have produced a good bill incorporating ideas of a number of Members. Let me say in response to my colleague from California, I noticed a substantial change in the last 2 months with the Federal Communications Commission. And I will talk about that a little bit. That without this legislation increasing the penalties, without the hearings we held, we would not see renewed vigor and renewed interest by the FCC enforcing the decency standards. And so, that is why even though the bill basically just increases the fines, what it did was it brought attention to the issue along with what has happened with our media outlets all across the country, I think, culminated in with what I think my colleague from New England would agree, was a great Super Bowl football game, but was eclipsed by what happened at half time. So, granted, this bill raises the penalties, but it also brought the attention of the regulators and a renewed vigor in enforcing the current law. It also includes an accountability in the bill that allows broadcast TV affiliates to place liability for content provided by the networks when the affiliates had little or no input on programming. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me on this provision. We ought to make the penalties be where the people are making the decisions on the content, and not someone who just happens to have a license, who would not want the Super Bowl. The legislation also reaffirms the authority of the FCC to evaluate the licenses for television, radio, or broadcasters that repeatedly run afoul of FCC's indecency standards. Congress is not creating a new standard for content for public airwaves, we are only requiring that the current standards be enforced in a meaningful way. I think many radio and television broadcasters and cable and satellite providers are taking significant steps to respond to the American public on this issue. Broadcasters are going to convene a decency submit at the end of this month. The sickest radio shock jock, Bubba the Love Sponge, is off the air. The television networks are going to delayed feed for live shows so we will not have any accidents as we saw at the Super Bowl. The cable and satellite providers are stepping up efforts to educate their customers about their ability to block out channels they do not want to receive. And I hope these industry actions continue, and combined with our legislation, will cause the increasing indecency of broadcast content over the past few years to be reversed. In Congress, we can get back to our important things. And this I do agree with my California colleague on reducing the national debt, creating more American jobs, expanding health care for our needy children. The FCC has never been particularly motivated on the indecency cases, but in the last 3 years, complaints have increased so substantially, and after these hearings, now the Commission has seen a renewed interest in enforcement, particularly, again, after the hearings. And hopefully our action today will get the Commission in an even more aggressive motion. Again, the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and our new chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) are to be commended on their work here today. I urge my colleagues to approve the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly say something about our immediate past chairman. I think all of us send our prayers and our hope to the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on his treatment and his surgery for his illness that was announced this week. Again, as a Democrat, we worked together typically on our committee, and all of us hope that the gentleman and his family are successful in being treated. Again, I yield back my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman.)

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today marks the independence of Texas, the greatest, most diverse state in the Union. Texas also has some of the most interesting and instructive history. I believe the lessons of Texas' struggle for independence are no less important today. One hundred and sixty-eight years ago, March 2, 1836, Texan delegates met at Washington-On-The-Brazos to sign the Texas Declaration of Independence. Less than 100 years after American patriots threw off the tyrannical British Empire's military domination, Texans and Tejanos were forced to launch a similar struggle against the military dictator, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. In the words of the Texas Declaration of Independence, the people's government had been ``forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism.'' As Sam Houston and other Texan delegates signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, General Santa Anna's army was besieging the Texans and Tejanos at the Alamo in San Antonio. That fortress fell four days later on the morning of March 6, 1836, when Lt. Colonel William Barrett Travis, Tennessee Congressman David Crockett, and approximately 200 other Texan and Tejano defenders were killed in action. Thankfully, their deaths were not in vain, as the remaining Texas forces under Sam Houston were able to surprise and defeat the much larger Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, just east of my hometown of Houston, Texas. At San Jacinto, noted Tejano patriot Captain Juan Seguin commanded a cavalry company during this final victory and later became a Senator in the Republic of Texas. Like the American patriots in 1776, Texans did not create a perfect state with their independence. It would not be until June 19th, or Juneteenth, 1865, that Texas' African-American citizens achieved the freedom that is an inalienable human right. Every Juneteenth, we remember that the struggle for equal rights is long and difficult, and demands our enduring commitment. A popular misconception of the Texas War for Independence is that the conflict was a case of Anglos fighting Mexicans. But accurate Texas history tells us that Hispanics who had long lived in Texas mostly did not consider themselves to be Mexicans, but instead thought of themselves as Tejanos. Tejanos inhabited Texas long before Mexico existed, and they lived there for the same reasons Anglos later moved there--freedom and vast productive land. So when General Santa Anna's forces began plundering areas of Texas, Tejanos and Texans both reacted with horror. It is inspiring to me that many Tejanos joined the fight for independence when the Mexican government became an exploitive military regime. The brotherhood of freedom can be stronger than the brotherhood of ethnicity, as Tejanos proved at Gonzalez, Bexar, Goliad, the Alamo, and finally along the banks of the San Jacinto River. On Texas Independence Day we reflect on our shared achievements, celebrate our peaceful cooperation with Mexico, and renew our commitment to preserving our representative government, freedom, and human and civil rights. Thank you Mr. Speaker, long live Texas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep disappointment in Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's remarks about Social Security. For any of you who missed his shocking pronouncement, Mr. Greenspan suggested Social Security benefits be cut for retirees, that the retirement age should be raised, and the cost of living adjustment, which was a whopping 2.2 percent this year, should be modified because it is too ``generous.'' In 2001, President Bush inherited a strong economy and a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. But that has been squandered and turned into a projected deficit of $2.9 trillion. We got into this mess not because of the war on terror, that I think all of us support, but because of the administration's fiscally irresponsible tax cuts. But Mr. Greenspan, who advocates permanent extension of these deficit-creating tax cuts, suggested we fix this economic disaster by raiding Social Security, not just borrowing from it like we do now. Surely this administration does not want to pay for tax cuts on the backs of the elderly. It is pretty easy for Mr. Greenspan to sit in his ivory tower and modify Social Security to meet his economic world view, but for those people living in the real world, for folks who are hanging sheet metal, who are working on our docks and ports, working on the assembly line all day, Social Security is a critical safety net that cannot be taken away or reduced. These are not folks who have the luxury of playing the stock market, as the administration would propose, or work a few more years, as Mr. Greenspan suggests. I hope and pray we reject his proposals and do not privatize Social Security.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 2004, I supported H.R. 3783, legislation to provide an extension of the transportation programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The fact that Congress had to approve yet another temporary extension of the Highway Trust Fund programs clearly shows the leadership of this Congress has misplaced priorities. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), legislation which is the product of the hard and tireless work of two well respected members of the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar. I call on my colleagues to enact this legislation at the full authorized level of $375 billion through 2009. Their legislation is being held hostage by ideological interests in the White House and House leadership who are apparently blind to the number one issue in my community of Houston, Texas: mobility. While transportation reauthorization is stalled in Congress, residents in my community are idling away an average of 37 hours and 60 gallons of gas this year in congested traffic. We lose $2.1 billion, every year, in productivity and fuel, and congestion has been getting worse. These figures are according to the Texas Transportation Institute's 2003 Urban Mobility Report. Texas mobility is also impacted severely by the fact that 10 cents of every dollar we pay in gasoline taxes goes to other states. I strongly believe that Texas deserves at least 95 percent of Texas gas tax revenue for Texas transportation projects and have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 2208, to that effect. But it will be much, much easier to increase our slice of the pie and get to that 95 percent level, if we fully fund H.R. 3550 and have a larger, total pie. The gasoline tax funds our public highways by tapping revenue from those who benefit from them--motorists and truckers. Every cent we pay at the pump to the federal government goes to transportation. How else should we pay for our unavoidable road, bridge, and transit construction? The current gasoline user fee method is simpler than having to stop every 5 miles or so and dig around for change in our car seats to pay a highway toll. Unless we can fully fund H.R. 3550, our constituents will be stopping to pay a lot more tolls in the future. The amount of funding generated by the static $0.18 per gallon federal gasoline tax has significantly eroded over the last several years due to inflation. To allow for necessary highway construction the federal gas tax should be indexed to inflation, as proposed by my respected colleagues Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Oberstar. It is frustrating to be confined by inadequate transportation funding during tough economic times because infrastructure investment brings major employment and development benefits. Each billion spent on infrastructure creates 47,500 American jobs, with 3.5 million jobs to be generated and sustained through 2009 under H.R. 3550, including over 200,000 jobs in Texas. Inadequate transportation investment leads to lost hours spent in traffic, lost job opportunities, and lost lives from unsafe road conditions. I call on my colleagues to fully fund H.R. 3550 at the bipartisan level of $375 billion.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Houston's Ironworkers Local 84 and to celebrate their one-hundredth year representing the interests of Houston's ironworkers. Our country's ironworkers have long been admired for the architectural wonders they created while working under tremendously dangerous conditions. For the past one hundred years, the Ironworkers of Local 84 have put their blood and sweat into the bridges and skyscrapers that have become Houston's celebrated landmarks. Their service to the Houston community, however, did not cease with the end of the work day. During times of war, the ironworkers answered the call for help and offered their skills in the homefront effort to win the war. Houston's ironworkers also have a long history of standing by each other. Local 84 has historically purchased cemetery plots to make sure that any deceased ironworker receives an honorable burial. Local 84 was Texas's first Ironworkers union to establish a pension fund and medical insurance for its members. Local 84 recognized early the importance of job training skills in remaining competitive in the field and Houston's Local 84 started an apprenticeship school and a program to upgrade the skills of its journeymen. Local 84's commitment to its members, to the Houston community, and to the nation as a whole cannot be exaggerated. Therefore, on this day, I salute the hard-working men and women of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 84 and thank them for one hundred years of service. Our great city would not be standing as tall without them, and I wish them great success for the next hundred years.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of PFC Armando Soriano. PFC Soriano was a constituent of the 29th District of Texas, and a true hero, who died on February 1, 2004, while serving his country in Haditha, Iraq. Armando Soriano joined the Army 2 months after graduating from South Houston High School in 2002. Soriano was assigned to the howitzer battery, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, in Fort Carson, Colorado. His unit in Iraq was attached to the 82nd Airborne Division of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. His vehicle, traveling with another one on a supply route, slid off a road and rolled over during bad weather. Armando Soriano leaves behind his two parents, Clotilde and Enrique, and 4 younger siblings. I know his parents, family and friends are devastated by this loss, but they should be proud of the great man Armando Soriano had become and that he died a hero while serving his country. His loss will be felt by all of South Houston, and I ask that you remember the Soriano family in your thoughts and prayers.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, again I thank our ranking member on our Subcommittee on Social Security and also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security. I know we have a difference of opinion on this issue; and I guess it is frustrating, because with what is happening with our general budget, this year, this Congress and this government will take $155 billion and borrow it from the Social Security trust fund, and what is it paying for? A lot of folks will say it is paying for the war in Iraq. No, it is also paying for tax cuts that this House passed on two different occasions. But by this bill today, we are going to take away these same Social Security trust funds that are for these widows and people who paid into Social Security. Again, let me explain to my colleagues, these are people who may never have paid into Social Security. If they did, they are subject to government pension offset, like everyone. But these people never paid in. They were educators or firefighters or police officers in a system that was not part of Social Security, but they paid into their own pension fund; and if their spouses die and they have been married for less than 10 years, we will not pay them their spousal benefit. I do not know how much harder this Congress can get. When we talk about giving tax cuts to everybody in the world, and we let companies move their headquarters overseas as a sham, and yet we are going to remove the Social Security benefits from a widowed educator, and typically 80 percent of them are women, and her only problem was that she taught school or worked in the cafeteria or helped clean up schools. Because their husband was a Social Security beneficiary, he paid into Social Security, maybe for their whole work life, and so you remove it. It is just frustrating that this bill is going to make a bad system even worse. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 743 and urge my colleagues to join in voting against it. In many ways, 743 is a good bill, and I know there are some good parts in it, and I heard my colleagues on both sides. It would help stem fraud and abuse in the Social Security system. Well, I support that. I agree that fugitive felons should not collect Social Security benefits. And I support a number of other provisions. But, in all honesty, if we have a fugitive felon getting Social Security benefits, why are they still a fugitive? Unfortunately, this has been wrapped up in an explosive issue that has caused serious harm to educators who are widowed by someone who has paid into Social Security. We are all familiar with the unfair government pension offset; 285 Members of this House have cosponsored legislation to reform the GPO. This provision of current law keeps public employees from collecting full spousal benefits if they receive a pension based on State, local, or Federal Government employment not covered by Social Security. This provision is unfair and targets government workers at the Federal, State, and local levels. Again, 285 of us think it ought to be reformed. The GPO is a problem for many public servants, but it is especially bad for women. Eighty percent of the Texas school teachers and retirees are women, sixty percent of that group are married, and almost all of them are eligible for Medicare through their husbands; but none of them are eligible for their spousal benefit because of the GPO under this bill. After a lifetime of being underpaid as teachers, they depend on their Social Security widow's benefit to make up for their retirement, but the GPO takes that benefit away. That is why, again, the repeal of H.R. 594 is so popular. The bill by our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), have, again, garnered 285 bipartisan cosponsors. We had an opportunity to address this in H.R. 743; but instead of fixing the GPO, this bill makes it harder for Texas teachers to collect the full spousal benefit. Again, 285 members agree the GPO is unfair and should be repealed. We should not penalize Texas teachers for figuring out a way to do what this Congress will not do. I urge my colleagues to stand for public servants everywhere and vote against H.R. 743.

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though I hate to disagree with another Texan, particularly the majority leader, but let me tell the Members the real story. It is not the unions that are the problem. Congress made in 1983 Social Security participation by some local governments voluntary, school districts. In Texas, very few school districts participate in Social Security because they have a teacher retirement system. Some do. But the problem we need to address in this legislation that we are not and it makes it worse is that we have a widow's benefit under Social Security. I do not care if they have never paid into Social Security at all. They receive a widow's benefit if they were married to someone for more than 10 years. And we have cases in Texas that educators, not just teachers, custodial staff, lunchroom staff, administrators, maybe even superintendents, the highest paid, but it covers so many people that they may work under that system their whole life. They are career educators, and yet they are married to someone who pays into Social Security for over 10 years, maybe 30 or 40 years, and when their spouse passes away, that person may be receiving teacher retirement then. All of a sudden, they say, I should get my spousal benefit because I am a widow. Tough luck. That spouse they may have been married with for 30 years, they receive very little, in fact, almost nothing under their Social Security benefits. That is what is wrong with the current law. That is why Texans innovatively have found a way, okay, we will go work a day. That is a loophole. Let me tell my colleagues I have watched lots of loopholes pass through this House in my six terms, but I am glad for one time maybe teachers are benefiting from it. But that is why we need to reform the Government Pension Offset, and that is why I wish the committee would deal with it. But, in all honesty, this is making a bad situation worse, because we will have Texan teachers who have committed their lives to our public schoolchildren and they will be retiring before this bill is effective if they have their magic number of years plus age, and they will retire because they will not want to lose their spousal benefits.