Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the offshore drilling provisions included in this bill.

I am categorically opposed to this bill because of provisions which would increase pressure for oil drilling in the protected waters off Florida's coast. It would also give billions of dollars in tax breaks and other giveaways to traditional fossil-fuel producers.

Included in this bill is a requirement to conduct an offshore inventory of oil and gas reserves. An expensive and environmentally damaging inventory in the protected waters of the Gulf is likely to increase pressure to lift the drilling moratorium off Florida's coast.

Another provision is a reduction in royalty payments for deep gas wells leased in the Gulf of Mexico. Any giveaway to the oil companies to reduce their costs will cause an increase in production. This will cause more exploration.

Florida is a beautiful state with miles of coastline. The Sunshine State economy depends heavily on tourism and the environment is the key factor in Florida's attractiveness to tourists. The tourism industry has an economic impact of $57 billion on Florida's economy. Not inconsequential is the 770 miles of gulf coastline and 5,095 of gulf tidal shoreline, and the hundreds of miles of beaches.

Florida's coastline is a treasure not just for Floridians, but all Americans and the rest of the world. For years Florida's delegation has worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. Even conducting an inventory of resources in the Gulf of Mexico will begin to destroy the efforts we have made as a state to preserve our sensitive lands. As long as there are rigs in the area, the potential for devastation to Florida's beaches persists. Florida's beaches are not something we can afford to compromise. This decision goes against everything that Floridians have worked for over so many years. Certainly, the people of Florida do not support this ill-advised decision.

The impact of offshore drilling threatens irreversible scarring to the landscape, affecting thousands of species, each critical to the ecosystem. The great weather, pristine beaches, and marine wildlife are the number one draws to our fine state. By moving forward with even a resources inventory, you risk a multi-billion dollar industry for only a few barrels of oil.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Third Congressional District of Florida, I stand today with a heavy heart following the sudden and tragic death of Mr. Arthur E. Teele, Jr.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2005 the State of Florida, this Nation, and I lost a great friend, patriot, and champion for the less fortunate. His death marks the end of a great career as a statesman, political leader, visionary, decorated veteran, attorney, newspaper publisher and family man.

Arthur Teele was an imposing figure, astute and sharp of mind and wit. He was as diverse as he was intuitive in matters of people, politics and the driving forces behind change.

Here was a man as complex in his thinking, as he was simple in his focus on bettering the lives of so many. He ably balanced political acumen with the ability to traverse and bridge party and ideological lines, bringing a voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless, and instilling a fighting spirit in those who felt lifeless and forgotten.

Arthur Teele was a skilled and brilliant strategist, who knew not only the pulse but felt the heart beat of his constituency; moreover, he moved deftly and with passion through all political and social ranks, regardless of political affiliations, to bring to many communities much needed services. As head of the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration, he built bridges of influence that brought transportation, jobs, and much needed services to depressed minority communities and the urban core. He stood tall and strong as a champion of enterprise, and as an advocate for changing the social, economic, and political fabric of communities across Florida, and indeed the Nation.

Arthur Teele, was the consummate man against the odds, taking on the fight for social and economic parity. He made us feel we were important and necessary partners in the fight to make this region, this State, and this Nation honor its promises to all citizens.

His legacy may well be written from varying viewpoints, yet I remind you that in all things, the good that men and women do, will in the eyes of those who really care, outlive and outshine all the other utterances.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Senate passed amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to include $1.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding to the veterans budget.

However, this funding comes more than a month late. We had a chance to get this emergency spending to the people who need the funding before we left for the July Fourth recess.

After the budget shortfall was announced, both sides of the aisle in the Senate came together to take immediate action to address this issue. They passed a $1.5 billion emergency funding amendment to immediately get the funds to the people who need it, our veterans, those who have defended this Nation against its enemies.

As we have seen by the slow movement of these badly needed funds, all Republicans do is talk, when it comes to a veteran in need.

The Republican Leadership in the House decided to sit on their hands and wait for President Bush to pull a number out of the air. That number was $975 million.

However, it turns out that the Bush level was $300 million short to fund veterans health.

This would be a good start to resolving the funding crisis in veterans healthcare, but I know this administration will continue to try to balance the budget on the backs of the men and women who have sacrificed to defend this great Nation of ours.

The Fiscal Year 2006 budget is short, and the FY 2007 budget is being calculated as we stand here.

Let this be the beginning of full funding for veterans healthcare, now and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), and the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their leadership and hard work in finally getting TEA-LU to this point so that we can pass a bill and get a bill signed into law.

This bill is almost 2 years overdue and should certainly include more money, but this bill will be a large win for the American people. This bill will provide billions of dollars for highway infrastructure improvement, transit systems, new buses and bus stops, congestion relief programs, and safety enhancements. It will also create millions of new jobs in transportation-related industries and will save thousands of lives each year.

Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. States get to improve transportation infrastructure that create economic development, put people back to work, enhance safety, and improve local communities.

Finally, I want to ask the ranking member to engage me in a colloquy to discuss an issue that did not get included in the bill but is important to the cattlemen in my home State of Florida. The current weight limitations for Florida cattlemen's shipment is 800 pounds. However, neighboring States are grandfathered in at a higher weight limit, placing Florida at a competitive disadvantage with its neighboring States.

The Florida delegation is asking that the committee make every effort to improve this unfair situation in the rulemaking process and to ensure that there is a fair playing field for Florida cattlemen.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and, as I take my seat, I want to once again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this letter from the President of the Maryland Washington Minority Contractor's Association detailing the discrimination that his members continue to face in transportation contracting.

MD. Washington Minority

Contractor's Association, Inc.,

Baltimore, MD, July 21, 2005.

Re: Reauthorization of DBE program.

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Sir or Madame: I address this correspondence to you on

a matter of extreme importance. Discrimination against one's

racial, ethnic and gender make-up is still the number one

impediment for minority entrepreneurs starting and sustaining

their businesses in America today. As the leader of a

minority trade association in Baltimore, Maryland, I have

witnessed and received testimony from many who have

experienced first hand the evils of procurement

discrimination in Government and private sectors.

The findings from disparity studies conducted throughout

Maryland indicate that countless minority businesses are not

being provided opportunities to grow their businesses because

of a lack of capital, bonding and retained earnings. Upon

attending a recent public hearing at the headquarters of the

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) on the subject

of its recent disparity study, I heard a disadvantaged

African American business testify that if the WSSC suspends

the DBE program, his company would be out of business. This

particular company supplies valves and manhole covers to

WSSC. The owner of the business further stated that other

water supply and treatment centers in the region who do not

have DBE programs won't buy from him because he can't get the

foundries to supply him. The foundries that do supply him do

so only to satisfy WSSC's DBE program.

If the DBE program is not reauthorized, the fate of the

majority businesses doing business under the program is

doomed. I urge the continuance of the program without haste.

Sincerely,

Wayne R. Frazier, Sr.,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Senate-passed amendment to include $1.5 billion to the veterans budget. After the budget shortfall was announced, both sides of the aisle in the Senate came together to take immediate action to address the issue. They passed a $1.5 billion emergency funding amendment to immediately get the funds to the people who need it, our veterans.

The Republican leadership of the House decided to sit on their hands and wait for President Bush to pull out of the air a number. That number was $975 million. This House passed that funding level and left for the July 4 recess. However, it turned out that the Bush level was $300 million short of funding veterans health. We know that budget is underfunded by more than $3 billion, that is B, billion. All Members need to do is read the independent budget. Every year they release their priorities, and every year the VA is short of funding to complete its mission.

While we were sitting on our hands, the three surgical operating rooms at the White River Junction in VAMC was closed on June 27 because the heating and air conditioning system was broken.

The community-based outpatient clinics needed to meet veterans' increased demand for care in the North Florida and South Georgia VA health care system was delayed due to fiscal restraint. As of April in Gainesville, Florida, there were nearly 700 service-connected veterans waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment.

Let us get past the $1.5 billion for veterans health care; let us just stop all of the talking and put our talk into action. Pass this motion to instruct and get veterans the health care that they need and deserve today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the inadequate Supplemental request that President Bush has sent to the Congress for its approval.

The President has sent up a new supplemental request, this time for Fiscal Year 2006. While the amount of $1.977 billion sounds like a lot, the devil is in the details.

Of this amount, $300 million is the additional money for Fiscal Year 2005 that the original supplemental did not include.

Also, the President continues to insist that veterans have not done enough to protect the freedom of this country. He is continuing to insist that a $250 user fee and an increase in the prescription co-pay be included in the budget.

This House of Representatives, in fact this Congress, has spoken many times against these provisions. They do not want to pass these costs onto the backs of veterans.

Yet again and again, President Bush ignores the wishes of the public and this Congress by submitting a supplemental that includes these legislative policies of his.

I am trying to understand this series of events.

The House passed $27.8 billion for FY05. The request for the VA in FY06 was the same $27.8 billion. There was no accounting for inflation, the rapid increase of health care costs in general or the fact that a war was ongoing. Soldiers were to return from Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to be integrated into the system.

George Bush underestimated the problem to the detriment of veterans health.

A first year accounting student could understand that adding more people and services

into an already overwhelmed system would cost more.

Except in the George Bush land of make-believe.

Then Bush comes to us with a ``make-believe'' $975 million supplemental to cover the shortfall. However, that turns out not to be enough and that you actually need $300 million more.

As I said earlier, the Fiscal Year 2006 supplemental of $1.977 does not include funding for the ``legislative policies'' of George Bush by charging veterans for their service to this country.

This supplemental request is short by another $1.2 billion.

In reality, this request of $1.977 should read at least $2.977 if you use George Bush's estimate of what these ``legislative policies'' will cost. Most likely it will cost much more.

Support the higher amounts advocated by the Senate: $1.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for FY05 and $3.2 billion in emergency supplemental funding for FY06.

I am not looking forward to whatever budget fiction George Bush is planning to lay on the veterans for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, this communication is forwarded on behalf of the constituents of Congressional District Three and myself as we pay tribute to the life of Irene Lockett.

We are all deeply and profoundly saddened by the loss of this gentle and loving spirit. Irene was a true believer in God and family. She encouraged us to be our very best in all we do, at all times. Throughout her life, her loving spirit was unshakeable, her will undaunted, her stature in the church she loved and in the community she cherished remained strong and led Pat, her daughter, and my sister, to pledge her life to public service. She was the wife of Walter Lockett, mother of Pat Lockett-Felder, a member of the Jacksonville, Florida City Council, a grandmother, a great-grandmother and a Matriarch to all, family and friends alike. She absorbed our fears and our tears with her gentle embrace. When I think of Irene Lockett, I am reminded of the words of Paul in the Book of 2nd Timothy, ``For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept my faith''.

Though our hearts ache, our tears of pain are mixed with loving memories of her smile, her touch, and that gleam in her eyes telling each of us how much she loved us, even when words would not flow. She kept her promise--to love us, nurture us, guide us, and in her own way, she prepared us for this day. Weep not in mournful pain, shed tears of joy for Irene--no more pain, no more hurt--rest now in the arms of the Father who welcomes her home and whispers gently, ``well done my child''.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen Young and Duncan, and Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Johnson for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. Like the TEA-LU bill, we have been waiting several years to pass this important legislation.

These water projects are extremely important for my home state of Florida and for my District. I have port dredging project that has been funded, but can not get started because the Corps of Engineers doesn't have authorization to do it. We are also still recovering from the ecological damage created by last year's hurricanes, and we can use this funding to continue to restore our state's waterways.

Like all transportation projects, those included in this bill will put people back to work, improve our communities, and creates economic activity.

By delaying the passage of this much needed legislation any further, we are doing a disservice to the people we represent.

I encourage my colleagues here in the House and in the Senate to pass this legislation quickly so we can move forward with the critical projects this bill contains.

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 13 years, and let me say one thing: we do not have a shortage of money here in this Congress. We pass whatever we want whenever we want. The problem is, and I rise on behalf of all of the veterans, the problem is that there is not the will. The veterans are not the priority.

What I said in committee I say on this floor today. We can send $1.5 billion over to the Senate. They can pick it up, pass it, and tomorrow morning the President will be taking pictures, taking credit for it; but who wins will be the veterans.

I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this time: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justifiable,'' and we are going to question that, ``will be directly proportionate as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.''

Now let us not sham them. Everybody knows that the veterans need $3 billion; not $1 billion, $3 billion. That is what the independent budget says. The other side of the aisle is not surprised. They know what they need.

Why is it we cannot come together and give them something more than this lip service? You all talk a great talk. Let us all come together and walk the walk for the veterans tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of veterans everywhere. What has been introduced here today is a sham. The emergency supplemental sent over by the President and accepted by the Republican leadership is wholly inadequate. This $975 million breaks down with money for many needed accounts; however, why should we believe their numbers now?

They lied to us when submitting their budget in February, they lied to us when they came to our committees in April, they did not discuss any issues with the minority members of the Veterans Committee. What do we know that the Senate does not? Why is there more than $500 million less for veterans in this bill? Why are we still trying to balance the budget on the backs of the veterans?

The 3 surgical operating rooms at the White River Junction VA Medical Center in Vermont had to be closed on June 27 because the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system was broken and had not been repaired due to the siphoning of maintenance funds to cover the budget shortfall.

The Community Based Outpatient Clinics needed to meet veterans' increased demand for care in the North Florida/South Georgia VA Healthcare System have been delayed due to fiscal constraints. As of April, the Gainesville facility has nearly 700 service-connected veterans waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment. As a result of cost cutting measures to make up for the shortfall in FY 2005, the Portland, Oregon, VA Medical Center is delaying all non-emergent surgery by at least six months. Veterans in need of knee replacement surgery won't be treated because of the budget shortfall.

The goal of the Republicans and President Bush is to delay funding to veterans health. By passing this level of funding, we are guaranteed a conference. That will delay funding. Our veterans cannot wait! Support our Veterans! Defeat the Previous Question and fully fund veterans health care! I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this time:

The willingness with which our young people are likely to

serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly

proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier

wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

Mr. Chairman, a recent poll showed that 81 percent of the American people said that this Congress does not stand with them on their priorities. There is no better example than what we are discussing here today. I fully support the amendment, but if the amendment is not adopted, I want Members to be clear that this will be the end of Amtrak. Today is a day where we are going to fish or cut bait. This is your opportunity to stand up for the people that sent you here.

Why is it that we constantly, in the House, hope the other body will rescue us?

The current funding issue concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves the needs for passenger rail service, or we can just let it fall apart and leave this country's travelers and business with absolutely no alternative forms of public transportation.

Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day waiting for a train that is not coming. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, and by the way, one of the strongest vocal persons are Members against Amtrak. We have given aviation over $20 billion. We give Iraq $1 billion a week. That is $4 billion a month. But we refuse to give Amtrak what is needed for 1 week. One week that we spend in Iraq will fund the entire Amtrak system for the entire country for an entire year. This is the day. You either fish or cut bait on Amtrak today, and the American people are watching you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment. The current funding issues concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart, and leave this country's travelers and businesses with absolutely no alternative form of public transportation.

Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day, waiting for a train that isn't coming.

We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive.

This issue is so much bigger than just transportation. This is about safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it needs to continue providing service, we should be providing security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures in the entire rail system.

Once again we see the Bush administration paying for its failed policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing more American jobs. This administration sees nothing wrong with taking money from the hard working Amtrak employees who work day and night to provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living for their families, and they don't deserve this shabby treatment from the President.

We're spending 1 billion dollars a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but this administration zeroed out funding for Amtrak. Just one week's investment in Iraq would significantly improve passenger rail for the entire country for an entire year.

It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what's best for the traveling public, not for the bean counters at OMB.

Some people think that the solution to the problem is to privatize the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we deregulated the airline industry. Only the lucrative routes would be maintained, and

routes to Rural locations will be expensive and few.

I was in New York shortly after September 11th when the plane leaving JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. I, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized once again just how important Amtrak is to the American people, and how important it is for this Nation to have alternative modes of transportation.

This isn't about fiscal policy, this is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation need and deserve.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike the language in this bill that prevents funding for 18 important Amtrak routes throughout the country. Without this amendment, 23 States, over 154 Members and 258 local communities and over 4 million passengers will be waiting for a train that is not coming.

This assault on Amtrak by the President and some of his allies in the Congress is a perfect example of why 81 percent of the American people believe Congress is out of touch with their priorities. This is the People's House, and I would hope that the House would do the people's work and also not wait for the other body to rescue us.

We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but there is no money for Amtrak or its passengers. Just one week's investment in Iraq would fund passenger rail for the entire country for the entire year. In fact, listen up, we could fund Amtrak for a year with the $1 billion that the Pentagon said was misappropriated by Halliburton.

I just want someone to explain to the American people why investing in transportation in Iraq is more important than investing in passenger rail right here in the United States. No transportation system in the world pays for itself. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to passenger rail systems, we refuse to provide money needed for Amtrak to survive. For years, we put Amtrak on a starvation diet, and now we are trying to kill it off.

Last year, we authorized more than $3 billion out of general revenue funds for the Federal Aviation Administration, and this is in addition to the $20 billion in financial relief that we provided to the airlines after 9/11, all paid for by the American public.

It is important to note that the Members who complain the loudest about Amtrak are the same Members that open up the American checkbook and ask how much do they need when the airlines come calling, all while ticket prices go up and service goes down.

I represent central Florida, which depends on tourists for its economy, and we need people to be able to get to the State to enjoy it. Ever since September 11, more and more people are turning from airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service. But if this amendment is not passed, the 200,000 visitors that take the AutoTrain to Florida each year will not be visiting our great State.

This is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my State. Amtrak runs four long distance trains through Florida, employing 990 residents, with wages totaling over $43 million. They purchased

over $13 million in goods and services last year, and they are doing it at the same time in every single State.

We have maps and information right here, and I would encourage my colleagues to see what impact Amtrak has on their State.

I want to thank all of the Members who have come to the Floor in support of Amtrak. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do the right thing for their constituents and support this important amendment. If we do not fund Amtrak, we will leave 25 million people waiting for a train that is not coming.

Mr. Chairman, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The American people support passenger rail service in this country. We will be the only civilized country that does not have passenger rail service.

Mr. Speaker, if my amendment is not accepted, millions of passengers will be stranded. Commuters, operators will be disrupted. Thousands of jobs will be eliminated. States will be forced to figure out how to pay for new services under already tight budget restraints. Taxes on freight railroads and their workers would increase as a result of decreased revenue for the railroad retirement and unemployment program, and local economies and businesses that depend on Amtrak services will

suffer. Save our Nation's passenger rail network. Vote yes for the Brown-Menendez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just say that the Republicans are very good at talking out of both sides of their mouths. Because as far as I am concerned, they practice what I call reverse Robin Hood: robbing from the poor and working people to give tax breaks to the rich. Not to Amtrak, but to the rich.

So let us be clear. This is not about whether or not we support the homeless. I have never not voted to support the homeless. In fact, one- third of the people that are homeless are veterans. They are veterans. And we do not adequately fund the veterans appropriations. All of a sudden you discovered that we are $1 billion short for the veterans. We have been saying all along, all of the independent budgets, that we are $3 billion.

So do not come up here and try to act Miss High and Mighty as far as this amendment is concerned. This is about Amtrak and whether or not we are going to have a National Transportation System in this country. It is clear that you have Republicans over there that do not support a National Transportation System, and we are going to have an opportunity to put it on the board.

The ink is not even dry. They have not even printed the amendment when you come up here to take $100 million from Amtrak. Let us not kid ourselves. This amendment is not about the homeless; this is about taking another bite at the apple. The House voted to fund Amtrak at $1.178 billion. Let us do not just start over again.

We have heard about the homeless. When do the Republicans support the homeless? Look at the budget. Over and over again, look at the record as to how you stand as far as the poor people of this country. In fact, we do not even use that word around here. Not poor people. We do not care anything about them. But transportation generates jobs and opportunity for the community, and that is what the question is on the table: Do we support a national rail system?

Do not be confused about the person and the amendment. The question is whether or not the American people support the foolishness that you keep bringing to the floor of this House. Eighty-one percent of the polls say that the Congress is not in tune with the views and values of the American people. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool them all of the time.

I support funding programs for homeless, but I am going to vote against your amendment because I support a national rail transportation system.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and also the 81 percent of the American people who said the Republican-controlled Congress is out of tune with their values and this is a perfect example.

Once again, the Republicans are out of step with mainstream America. This fact is made evident in the recent CBS poll taken that showed that the Republican dominated Congress' popularity is hovering around 30 percent, an outright embarrassing figure.

Public broadcasting is extremely important, and should not be simply ignored by conservatives here in Congress. For millions of parents, public broadcasting represents a children's television network of amazing excellence and value. At a cost of just over $1 per year per person, what parents and children get from free, over-the-air public television and public radio is an incredible bargain.

Now, I say to my colleagues, we are talking about a corporation (The Corporation for Public Broadcasting or CPB) that is a taxpayer-funded agency that provides critical dollars to public broadcasting across the country, and is considered by many, if not most of America, to be a ``highly reliable source of information.''

I remember when I first came to Congress, and Speaker Newt Gingrich had a similar plan, which was to ``zero out'' public broadcasting altogether. At that time, just as they are doing now, the Republicans were claiming that there was an extreme liberal bias in the programming. And then, as now, they tried to do away with the programming, but more practical voices prevailed and the funding was eventually restored. So here once again, led by Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican who is now chairman of the corporation, the Republican Party wants to move PBS to the right wing of the political spectrum, and at the same time streamline their funding. I say to them that, along with Representative Obey, I emphatically will fight to have this horrific cut in funding restored, and strongly support this amendment.

Announcement by The Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, to see just how out of touch the Republican Congress is with the American people, look no further than the recent CBS poll taken just last week. In the poll, it clearly says that 81 percent of the American public believes that Congress does not share their priorities. This, Mr. Speaker, is just how out of touch the Republican leadership is with the American people. They just do not get it. And today's debate is just one more example of that. Cutting public broadcasting. I cannot tell you how many dozens and dozens of my constituents have been calling me on this issue telling me and my staff emphatically that they absolutely do not want to see any cuts in public radio and TV broadcasting. But their wishes, their calls, their complaints, their desires, their priorities are falling on deaf ears.

In reality, the Labor-HHS bill that was on the floor today and will be back tomorrow shows once again how the Republican Party's outright irresponsible tax cuts for the rich have exhausted the budget. So when they say we have to cut money for things like job training, assistance for the unemployed, No Child Left Behind, community services block grants, training programs for health professionals, the health communities access program, a program which helps serve the uninsured; as well as children's health block grants and freezing after-school centers, I say to them, on behalf of the American people, four out of five of whom do not support the Republican leadership, shame, shame, shame.

We are also spending $1 billion a week in Iraq. That is $4 billion a month. Yet this administration has zeroed out funding for Amtrak.

Just 1 week of investment in Iraq would significantly improve passenger rail for the entire country for an entire year. I just want someone to explain to the American public why investing in transportation in Iraq is so much more important than investing in passenger rail right here in the United States of America.

Today right here in America we have 50 million people without health insurance. We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country, and we have a $477 billion Federal deficit. We have a $375 billion shortfall in transportation funding, and we still do not know what happened to the weapons of mass destruction.

I close by posing this question: Is bankrupting this great country the top priority of this administration? I must repeat that. Is bankrupting this great country the top priority of this administration? They are certainly big on bankrupting Amtrak and doing away with passenger trains. I stand here to question the priorities of the House leadership, the priorities of the other body, and definitely to question those of the policymakers or the bean counters over in the White House.

Like 81 percent of the American public, I am growing tired and weary of the Republican majority and the priorities of this administration. I call on my colleagues to change directions, to give up privatizing Social Security, to give up selling out our health care system to the pharmaceuticals, and to listen to the American public and get in tune with their real needs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Once again in the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, we see Amtrak being treated like an ugly stepchild of this Nation's transportation system.

If we are wondering why only 19 percent of the American people feel that the Congress is in tune with their priorities, the cuts in Amtrak is one blatant reason why.

Yesterday we passed a $408 billion defense appropriations bill, and it did not even include the costs of the war in Iraq. We are cutting Amtrak routes to local governments throughout the United States that have no other form of public transportation. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but this administration zeroes out funding for Amtrak, and the Committee on Appropriations does not even give them enough money to operate the Northeast corridor.

Just one week's investment in Iraq would significantly improve passenger rail for the entire country for an entire year. The current funding issue concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question as to where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an opportunity to improve the system that serves our needs for passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart and leave this country's travelers and businessmen with absolutely no alternative forms of public transportation.

Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see people that rely on Amtrak to get to work each day waiting for a train that is not coming.

We continue to subsidize highways and aviation; but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive.

This issue is much bigger than just transportation. This is about safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it needs to continue to provide services; we should be providing security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures in the entire rail system.

Once again, we see the Bush administration paying for its failed policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing more American jobs.

It is time for this administration to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what is best for the traveling public, not what is best for the right wing of the Republican Party and the bean counters at OMB.

I represent central Florida, which depends on tourists for its economic survival. We need people to be able to get to the State and enjoy it. Ever since September 11, more and more people are turning from the airlines to Amtrak; and they deserve safe and dependable service.

This is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my State. Amtrak runs four long distance trains from Florida, employing 990 residents, with wages totaling over $43 million, who purchased

over $13 million in goods and services last year. They are doing the same thing in every State that they run in.

Some people think the solution to the problem is privatizing the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we deregulated the airline industry. Only the lucrative routes will be maintained and routes to rural locations will be expensive and few.

I was in New York shortly after September 11 when the plane leaving JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. I, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized once again just how important Amtrak is to the American people and how important it is for the Nation to have alternative modes of transportation.

This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this country need and deserve.

I am asking all of my colleagues to join me and support the full funding of Amtrak.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in wholehearted opposition to this outrageous Republican bill, which requires the Secretary of State to press for numerous reforms at the United Nations (UN) including budgeting, oversight and accountability, peacekeeping, and human rights. H.R. 2745, which requires the Secretary of State to withhold 50 percent of U.S. assessed contributions to the regular budget of the U.N., if the Secretary is unable to certify that the reforms called for by this bill have been met, is simply unacceptable.

The United Nations, which is based in our country, in New York City, was created in 1947 by the United Nations Participation Act, with a mission of assisting the President and the Department of State in conducting United States policy at the United Nations.

Along with my Democratic colleagues, I wholeheartedly believe in the goals of the United Nations, yet I do believe there is some need for reforming the organization. The idea that our country can just unilaterally withhold 50 percent of what we owe to the U.N. and then veto any new or expanded peacekeeping operations is not good politics, and does not serve our national interest by any means. I do however; strongly believe that the Lantos-Shays substitute, which, if passed, would empower the Secretary of State to withhold funds if the suggested reforms are not met, would allow the United States to work with other nations to achieve true reform.

There are numerous problems with this bill. Perhaps the most ridiculous is the mandating of the withholding of 50 percent of our dues to the U.N. by giving inadequate flexibility to the Secretary of State. The bill, in effect, mandates a withholding of U.S. dues by imposing an unrealistically long list of 38 reforms, a number of which are virtually impossible to achieve in such a short period of time.

In my estimation, given that our country has been, and remains to be, the single largest contributor to the U.N., that we should not attempt to simply strong arm the organization with threats or sanctions merely to achieve the types of reforms we deem necessary. In fact, in 2002, our contributions to the U.N. totaled more than $3.0 billion, a total which included over $5 million in assessed contributions to their regular budget and U.N. affiliated agencies; about $750 million in assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping activities; about $50 million for war crimes tribunals; and about $1.7 billion in voluntary contributions to U.N.-affiliated organizations and programs. To reiterate, I simply do not think that unilaterally withholding funds from the United Nations is a good way to achieve real reform of the organization, and if I had been able to be here today, I would have voted ``yes'' on the Lantos-Shays Substitute, and ``no'' on overall passage of the Hyde bill.