Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank Chairman Young and Chairman Petri, and particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Oberstar for his leadership on this issue.

This bill is over 2 years overdue, and that is just not fair to the Nation's traveling public who deserve better from this Congress and, of course, from this administration. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, yet there is a question as to the level of spending in this transportation bill. Clearly, the committee voted $318 billion for transportation. The Department of Transportation itself said that we needed $375 billion. They said $375 billion.

The Department of Transportation statistics show that for every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure, it creates 42,000 jobs. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people, and you cannot argue with those figures. Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. The States get to improve their transportation and infrastructure. That creates economic development and puts people back to work; it enhances safety and improves local communities.

By delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation, we are doing a disservice to the driving public and to the Nation as a whole. The States are battling red ink and want to see this bill passed. The construction companies, who are laying off employees, want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams in Orlando, Florida, and central Florida want to see this bill pass.

Let us get serious about putting people back to work and let us pass a bill that truly meets the needs of the traveling public and not the needs of this President who is trying to look fiscally responsible while he runs up the national debt.

I encourage everyone to contact their Members and ask them to support transportation funding that truly meets the needs of this growing Nation. We need to stop spending money everywhere but here in the United States. Transportation infrastructure spending is an investment in America, and it is time we spent money on something that benefits the people that are actually paying the bills.

Mr. Speaker, I am Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and have served in the House of Representatives over twelve years. I have observed and monitored elections in areas as diverse as Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean, and Haiti in particular. In years past, I have traveled to Africa and other parts of the world to monitor living conditions and the status of human rights.

From what I saw, although there was some tension in Lome before and during the election, I witnessed more than anything thousands of calm voters who patiently waited in long lines to vote for the candidate of their choice. Overall, the Togolese seemed very pleased that an American, particularly a Member of Congress, was present during the election.

The election problems I encountered on Election Day were similar to voting problems in the United States. These problems consisted of the following: Very long voting lines, polls not opening on time, electricity (where it existed) going out briefly, and some voters' names not being on the voting rolls (by the way, I found it interesting that the international monitors in Togo told me they would not mention that I was from Florida). I stayed at the polls through the evening when the voting boxes from Lome's polling sites were brought to City Hall for a public count. Many of Togo's citizens, together with international observers and dignitaries, were present for the count which lasted into the night. Although our team stayed in Lome, there were observers stationed throughout the country.

By the next day, the Economic Coalition of West African States (ECOWAS) declared that the election, although not perfect, was generally peaceful and successful. ECOWAS accepted the announced vote tally of 60 percent of the vote for Gnassingbe Essozimna Faure, declaring him the newly elected President of Togo. In addition to meetings and briefings with ECOWAS leaders, I also met with and worked closely with hundreds of other international Independent Election Monitors.

To me, Togo's Presidential Election of 2005 was an exceptional election because of the unexpected death of Togo's President, who had been in power for thirty-five years. Under his rule, Togo developed a Constitution and a Parliamentary government with a Prime Minister. And, according to the Togolese Constitution, within 60 days of the death of a President, there must be a Presidential election, and Africa's Coalition of Economic Countries (ECOWAS) set the election date for April 24th 2005.

Indeed, Togo's recent Presidential Election was important, not just for Togo, but for all of Africa and for the world. Clearly, each African election is newsworthy as another step towards democratization. I believe that a free, fair and democratic election in Togo was also particularly important, so that post election Togo does not descend into chaos, and destabilize the neighboring African countries with refugees.

Lastly, as a sign of ongoing progress, the elected government and the opposition groups are meeting in Abuja, Nigeria's capitol, to discuss the distribution of power within the new government. Attending the meeting will be the African Union's chairman, Nigeria's President Obasanjo, and Niger's President Tandja, who is currently presiding over ECOWAS. Also in attendance are Faure Gnassingbe, Togo's elected President, representatives of Togo's opposition coalition, led by exiled leader Gilchrest Olympio, defeated presidential candidate Emmanuel Akitani Bob and Harry Olympio, an independent candidate, as well as the leaders of Gabon, Burkina Faso, and the UN Secretary General's representative, OuId Abdallah.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their leadership on this issue.

This bill is almost 2 years overdue, and that is just not fair to the Nation-traveling public who deserve better from this Congress and this administration. If you have been watching the floor today, you will know that we are building the world's largest embassy in Iraq, even though the Iraqi people do not want us there, and even though this will be the biggest target for terrorists in the world.

We are spending $1 billion a week to destroy and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, while completely ignoring the infrastructure right here in America, the people who are paying the bills.

Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool which this Nation sorely needs. The Department of Transportation statistics show that every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs. Let me repeat that: 42,000 jobs for every $1 billion we invest, and $2.1 billion in economic activities. It also saves 1,400 lives. We cannot argue with those statistics.

Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. States get an improved transportation infrastructure that creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves local communities.

Why the President is opposed to this bill that has the potential of creating millions of jobs is beyond me. The President's own Highway Administration has stated that we need a minimum of $375 billion just to maintain current infrastructure. By delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation, we are doing a disservice to the driving public and the Nation as a whole.

The States who are battling red ink want to see this bill passed, the construction companies who are laying off employees want to see this bill passed, and the citizens who are waiting in traffic jams want to see this bill passed.

Let us get serious about putting people back to work. Let us pass a bill that truly meets the needs of the traveling public and not the need for the President to seem fiscally responsible while he runs up the national debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2057, which disapproves of DC. Act 16-47 (the Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Temporary Act of 2005), which calls for the rerouting of hazardous materials around Washington, DC.

While re-routing hazardous materials from the Capitol area of Washington, DC sounds well-intentioned, it only shifts the risk of that transportation to other neighborhoods and other modes of transportation. The additional switching of these cars will add to the congestion in the yards, and back up traffic on CSXT main lines, potentially affecting their entire network, including Amtrak, VRE, and MARC. It also means that chemical containers could be sitting for hours, if not days, in rail yards waiting to be moved.

Longer transit times and distances, increased car handlings and dwell times are factors that tend to increase the inherent risk of transporting hazardous materials. This would also add significant cost to the shippers, and potentially disrupt the flow of commerce for those customers like water treatment plants, pharmaceutical companies, gas stations, etc.

The Federal Government has always had the ultimate authority over interstate commerce. The transportation of hazardous materials is governed by Federal regulations as proscribed under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which gives the authority to DOT. And it is important to note that the railroads are governed by the common carrier duty, which means we must carry what is legally tendered to them by law.

Finally, the Department of Justice, the National Industrial Transportation League, the American Trucking Associations, the United Transportation Union, Norfolk Southern and others have either weighed in with an amicus brief in Federal Court, a letter to the STB, or a letter to the House Government Reform and Senate Homeland Security Committees.

I call upon government at all levels to develop meaningful standards that improve safety and security for all modes. Rerouting freight from one backyard to another does not constitute meaningful standards to improve safety and security for any mode, and I encourage this Congress to promptly disapprove DC's ordinance.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to return to Washington to vote on April 26, 2005 through April 28, 2005.

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll No. 133, ``yes'';

Roll No. 134, ``yes'';

Roll No. 135, ``yes'';

Roll No. 136, ``yes'';

Roll No. 137, ``yes'';

Roll No. 138, ``no'';

Roll No. 139, ``no'';

Roll No. 140, ``yes'';

Roll No. 141, ``yes'';

Roll No. 142, ``yes'';

Roll No. 143, ``yes'';

Roll No. 144, ``no'';

Roll No. 145, ``yes'';

Roll No. 146, ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, for the week of April 25th through the 29th, I was unable to make it to the House Floor to vote because I was unintentionally detained in the African nation of Togo. I have traveled to Africa on numerous occasions in the past, both as an election observer and as a human rights ombudsman and advocate. Most recently, I was in Nigeria (in April, 2003) during the momentous election which underlined that nation's continual transition to democracy. Many Members of the CBC, including myself, attended, and we were more than pleased to see that the outcome was just, and that popular, fair elections instead of a violent military coup decided who would run the government. Africa is a continent that is very near and dear to my heart, and is an area of the world that is too often overlooked and ignored.

The recent presidential election that took place in Togo was the first election the country has witnessed in the last 38 years. As an invited election observer, I viewed with cautious

optimism how people nationwide went to the polls and cast their vote for the next President of Togo. From what I saw, a position which was supported by 160 ECOWAS (Economic Countries of West African States) observers and hundreds of independent observers, the election appeared to be ``credible.'' Again, in my view, the election was a success overall, and I will be filing a complete report on my observations of the election in the near future. I would also like to thank the United States State Department for all of their help and support. Certainly, when a citizen of the United States leaves our country's borders, the Department of State takes over as the guardian and protector of U.S. citizens. Oftentimes, they do not get the credit they deserve for their hard work, dedication and service to our nation. I would like to particularly thank the United States Ambassador to Togo, Charles H. Twining, and United States Ambassador to Benin, Wayne Neill, as well as their staffs for all of their attention and assistance to me while I was in Africa.

Again, I was unintentionally detained out of the country while serving as an Election Observer for the Presidential Election in Togo. The airport in the capital, Lome, was closed, and the borders out of the country were sealed.

Mr. Speaker, 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.''

Republican priorities:

Many of them talk about protecting veterans and making sure veterans have the support they need when returning from protecting this country's freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 8, to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. This bill will cost the American taxpayer $290 billion over the next ten years. The cost over the first ten years could go to $1 trillion.

Let me repeat that: $1 trillion.

That is a huge cost to all of us.

The bill gives a tax break to the wealthiest \3/10\ of 1 percent of estates, while imposing a new capital gains tax on most, including those of small business owners and farmers.

At the same time, the Republicans passed a budget that calls for $800 million in cuts to the VA over the next five years.

Clearly, the Republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans' health care, and on the backs of the widows and orphans of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country's freedom.

Today, this same house will vote on bankruptcy legislation that does nothing to protect our veterans.

These brave men and women are serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at home, their lives and livelihoods are going down the drain. Many of these people have gone into debt and the circumstances of their debt occurred either before, during or after their active duty. This bill does not help these people.

Many of our service members--especially, the citizen soldiers of the Guard and Reserve forces, could face terrible financial problems because they do not qualify for a narrow protection of debt incurred while on duty if S. 256 becomes law.

Since 9/11, approximately half a million Reservists and Guardsmen have been called to active duty: Some more than once. Hundreds of thousands of Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently activated in support of ongoing military operations. According to the National Guard, 4 out of 10 members of the National Guard and Reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty.

The people of this country need to see what policies the republicans actually vote for. They talk the talk very well, but do not walk the walk or roll the roll for our veterans, who have sacrificed their bodies for this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill does nothing to protect our heroic Reservists and Guard who are fighting for us every day in war.

Mr. Speaker, today we introduced a bipartisan Amtrak reauthorization bill that will truly serve America's traveling public. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for joining me in this effort. This is truly a bipartisan effort and shows the strong support Amtrak has within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Congress.

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 just 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 operational, 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 passenger rail service we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive.

This issue is 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 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 policy by cutting funds to public service 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 do not deserve such

shabby treatment from this administration.

We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but this administration zeros out funding for Amtrak. Just one week's 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 service right here in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this administration to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what is in the best interest for the traveling public, not what is best for the right ring or the Republican Party or the European counters over at OMB.

Today in America, we have 50 million people without health care. We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country. 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 or who at the White House outed one of the CIA agents. Yet this President's top priority is bankrupting Amtrak. I do not understand that.

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

This is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my State. Amtrak runs four long-distance trains from Florida, employs 990 residents with wages totaling over $43 million, and purchased over $13 million in goods and services last year alone, and they are doing the same thing in every State they run in.

Some people think 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.

Shortly after 9/11, I was in New York when the plane leaving JFK Airport crashed immediately after takeoff. 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 more than one form of transportation.

I encourage everyone that uses Amtrak to get to work or to travel to call their Congressman or Senator and let them know how important Amtrak is to them. This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation need and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the Republicans' priorities. Many of them talk about protecting veterans and making sure that veterans have the support they need when they return from protecting this country's freedom in Iraq.

Today the House passed H.R. 8 to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. This bill will cost the American taxpayers $295 billion over the next 10 years. The cost on the first 2 years could go as high as $1 trillion.

This bill gives a tax break to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates, while imposing a new capital gains tax on most of us, including small business owners and farmers. At the same time, the Republicans passed a budget that calls for $800 million in cuts to the VA over the next 5 years.

Clearly, the Republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the veterans.

Tomorrow, this same House will vote on bankruptcy legislation that does not protect our veterans. Many of our servicemembers, especially the citizen soldiers of the Guard and the Reserve forces, face terrible financial problems because they do not qualify for a narrow protection of debt incurred while on duty if S. 256 becomes law.

Since 9/11, approximately half a million Reservists and Guardsmen have been called to active duty, some more than once. Hundreds of thousands of Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently activated in support of the ongoing military operations. According to the National Guard, four out of 10 members of the National Guard and Reservist forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty.

The people of this country need to see what policies the Republicans actually vote for. They talk the talk very well, but they do not walk the walk or roll the roll for our veterans who have sacrificed their bodies for this Nation.

Today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member, filed a bill for mental health for our veterans. It is clear that they are slipping through the cracks, and we need to focus our attention on how to assist veterans returning from the war, whether it is economic, whether it is health care, or whether it is to make sure that they have their jobs and have a seamless transition.

We need to do more than talk the talk. We need to make sure that our money follows all of this rhetoric we have on the floor constantly about how we support the veterans. It should not be just talk, but it should be our actions.

Mr. Speaker, the EPA is trying to exploit the poor people in my district for their pseudo-Nazi and Tuskeegee-like studies to determine what pesticides do to infants and toddlers in Duval County Florida.

In October, the EPA received $2.1 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto Critics of the research, including some EPA scientists, claim the study's funders guarantee the results will be biased in favor of the chemical industry, at the expense of the health of the impoverished children serving as test subjects.

The families would have to keep spraying, even when the directions on the bottles say ``cover all food and keep pets and children outside and away from the pesticides.''

The point of the study is to determine what happens to children exposed to pesticides. There is no reason to believe that the participants would be informed about incorrect use of pesticides that would abnormally affect the children. Any change in pesticide use would skew the results.

In fact, EPA policy recommends that children be kept away from all pesticides because all pose some health risks. But the agency will not be warning parents in this study group. Doing so would interfere with the study. Infants and toddlers up to 3 years in age are involved, and the agency will warn their parents of the pesticide danger only if their children begin to show risky levels of pesticides in their urine,

There are no safeguards to prevent a family from increasing their pesticides use to become eligible for the study.

This is a low income area. $970 over two years, plus a video camcorder is a lot of money to many people.

The EPA Press Release for this study said: ``As part of this exposure study, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has signed a cooperative research agreement with EPA to collect information on exposures of young children to several household chemicals, including phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals.''

These classes of chemicals have been shown to have effects on male sperm counts in adults, and are known to be dangerous. The European Union is in the process of banning these drugs.

This project is symptomatic of a larger problem.

This administration has been pushing to increase human testing.

American kids should not be guinea pigs for a misguided administration proposal to help the large pesticide companies increase sales.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Their budget and our budget really is the compassionate budget that is fiscally responsible.

I have comments from the American Legion, from the national legislative director of AMVETS, from the national legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I just want to paraphrase what they said:

We think cutting veterans benefits, talking about the majority budget, is, and I paraphrase, unacceptable, especially at a time when American soldiers, sons and daughters, are being wounded and killed every day in Iraq.

In addition, it appears that this pattern of shortchanging veterans medical care continues in the 109th Congress. American veterans and their families deserve better.

Let me just give a few examples of how we strengthen one national defense. I will put all of it in the Record; but clearly in this House, in closing, only the big dogs eat in this House.

I rise strongly to support the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. We are truly the conscience of this Congress.

This budget represents true compassion with fiscal responsibility. It includes increases in programs that the American people believe in and that the Republicans just give lip service to. Our budget includes increased funding for: education programs, school construction, job creation programs, child nutrition programs, community health centers, and Amtrak, which 800,000 American's use to get to work, and whose budget got Zeroed out by this foolish Administration.

And unlike the Republican's, it doesn't balance the budget on the backs of the veterans, the homeless, seniors, and the poor.

In the Republican's House, the Big Dogs Eat first, and everyone else has to get in line.

Do the right thing for the American people. Support the Congressional Black Caucus Budget.

I would like to thank Mr. Watt and Mr. Scott for their hard work on putting the CBC alternative budget together.

If we do not take care of our veterans now, we will not have the boots on the ground in the future to respond to any attack against us or our allies.

This budget straightens our priorities to include both defending our country and the freedom it cherishes and giving our veterans the chance they need to succeed once they leave the service.

All of the funds reduced from Ballistic Missile Defense are

reallocated within various functions to provide for

additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense

items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs

($1.1 billion), homeland security needs ($2.05 billion), and

veterans programs and benefits ($4.65 billion). All

calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year

2006 levels included in the Republican budget.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Defense: Body armor, personal support equipment, and $75 million. other protective gear for troops, and vehicle armor. Ammunition for Marine Corps................... $10 million. Small Arms for Army........................... $10 million. Building/Maintenance of Navy ships............ $1 billion. To study instances of waste, fraud and abuse $5 million. within DoD business processes and implement specific GAO recommendations for reform. Veterans: +$4.65 billion Veterans Health Care.......................... $1 billion. Survivor Benefit Plan......................... $100 million. Disabled Veterans Tax [``concurrent receipt''] $2.5 billion. Fund long-term care initiatives for veterans.. $400 million. Remove proposed $250 enrollment fee on $300 million. Priority 7&8 veterans. Remove proposed increases in co-payments for $150 million. Priority 7&8 veterans. Prosthetic needs for veterans................. $100 million. VA Medical and Prosthetic Research............ $50 million. Mental Health Care for Veterans............... $50 million. Allowances (all for purposes of Homeland Security): +$2.05 billion Rail Security................................. $100 million. Port Security, including air cargo screening, $500 million. preventing nuclear/radiological weapons in cargo containers, research and development, and grants. Centers for Disease Control................... $250 million. First Responders.............................. $900 million. Interoperable communications systems for first $85 million. responders. Federal air marshals.......................... $65 million. Internal Customs Enforcement/Border Patrol $150 million. Agents.

Total Defense Funds Used, All of Which $7.8 billion.

Are Reallocated to Defense, Homeland

Security Needs, and Veterans Programs

and Benefits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

It is not you; it is your policy. When I say ``big dog,'' I am talking about those huge tax cuts to the rich while we cut veterans programs, programs for health care, programs for the people that need it the most.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this budget matter.

Shame, shame, shame. I cannot believe the Republican budget. Our men and women that serve this country are putting their lives on the line, and what are we doing? Cutting benefits and refusing service. I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating over and over again.

``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, should be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars are treated and appreciated.''

The independent budget puts support by the veterans community as $300 billion short. I say that President Bush's budget and the House Republican Bush budget should be dead on arrival. Let me repeat that. I said that Bush's budget and the House Republican budget as it relates to veterans should be dead on arrival.

On top of all of this, this budget tells the Veteran's Affairs Committee, which I am on, to find $800 million in cuts over the next 5 years for savings.

You know, the Republicans practice what I call reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the veterans to give tax cuts to the rich. The President keeps telling us we are at war. Well, put your money where your mouth is.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor. I do want to point out, it is 17 months late.

America's transportation infrastructure is in need of significant additional funding, and we need to act fast, but knowing how much money we truly need to fund the Nation's transportation infrastructure, I hope that the other body will pass the original bill of $318 billion so that we can get the best bill possible in conference.

I appreciate the hard work and compromise involved in drafting this bill, but the current funding formula is unfair to many of the States who need transportation dollars. Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. States get to improve transportation infrastructure; that creates economic development, puts people back to work and, most important, enhances safety and improves local communities.

Unfortunately, we are unable to add rail to this bill, but that does not mean that rail infrastructure is taken care of. We have dangerously underfunded rail security and are now scrambling to protect our transit passengers. We are also ignoring and underfunding high speed rail which is one of the best ways to move citizens and improve congestion on our highways.

By far, the most important thing that this bill is missing is the funding for Amtrak. How do we write a comprehensive transportation bill that does not include passenger rail? Every civilized country in the world supports passenger rail but this country. Let me correct that, 66 percent of the American people support passenger rail.

It is just this Bush administration, along with Secretary Mineta, that is ignoring the needs of transportation, our friend, Secretary Mineta. We are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq; that is $4 billion a month, but this administration is zeroing out funding for Amtrak.

Our committee needs to take passenger rail seriously and fund Amtrak at the level it is needed to provide service to thousands of citizens every day.

This bill is the first step in passing a real transportation funding bill that will meet the needs of the Nation's transportation and infrastructure and the citizens who need it, and I want to emphasize first step.

Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, the Florida Secretary of Transportation is in town today, along with Commissioner Lazaro, and they are both opposed to this amendment.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has said that we need to invest $375 billion just to keep up with the needs of this Nation's transportation infrastructure. Yet we have a bill on the floor today at $284 billion. Obviously, this is not enough of an investment we need to keep up with our transportation system.

This amendment will tie the hands of the State departments of transportation and would deny them the flexibility they need to fund important projects in their State. My home State of Florida is experiencing tremendous population growth, and we use tolls to cover many of the high costs related to maintaining an adequate transportation system. Without these additional revenues, there is no question that current improvement projects will not be funded. In other words, no tolls, no roads.

The current tolling provisions in this bill were carefully worked out in a bipartisan manner and were developed to allow States the flexibility to build new roads, reduce congestion, and invest in transit. We authorize this major transportation bill every 6 years so we can make major investments in infrastructure and improve the national transportation system, but the Kennedy amendment does the opposite. It takes money from the States and limits their ability to creatively finance major projects. In closing, no tolls, no roads.