Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty excited about

the fact that we are going to spend an hour discussing Amtrak. I do not think anybody in this country knows more about transportation and transportation infrastructure and the needs of transportation than the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I have asked him to give us kind of a broad background, bringing us up to date as to how we arrived where we are as far as Amtrak is concerned in this country. And then we will go to the other speakers.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Would you answer just one question for me before you leave. Can you let me know whether there is any form of transportation that pays for itself?

You know, we have been raising this issue about aviation, and, you know, we put billions of dollars, I forget how many billions into aviation, and we talk about our transportation bill, we have it on the floor today, and we are putting it in.

But is there any mode of transportation in the whole world that pays for itself?

Mr. Speaker, now the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. Speaker, now I would bring up the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa). He is new to the Congress, but not new to the fight as far as passenger rail is concerned. He has a history that precedes him in the legislature in California.

Mr. Speaker, would you believe that 66 percent of the American people support Amtrak? Not 66 percent from the Red States or the Blue States, but 66 percent of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and a leader in this country on transportation and infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I ask the gentleman one question before he leaves?

I know that the gentleman comes from Baltimore, which is a big city, and many people look at the big city and know that we need Amtrak. But would the gentleman believe that 109 small cities do not have any other form of transportation? They do not have bus service, nor do they have air service.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), also a leader on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the gentleman: Can he repeat how much we are proposing to spend this year on Amtrak?

Zero.

Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion. Would the gentleman believe that we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month in Iraq, and with $3 billion, it would completely fund the Amtrak system and bring it up to date. The people that pay the bill are getting the short end of the stick.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the delegate from the District of Columbia who is a leader on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and has been on that committee ever since I have been here in Congress for over 12 years, and I know longer, but certainly is the voice for transportation, not just in the District, but in the country.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

We are working on the bill; hopefully, we will pass it tomorrow. But I want to point out, we are looking at a bill that is $284 billion, and our Department of Transportation indicated that we needed $375 billion. So we are way behind. This is because this Bush administration does not support the investments that we really need to make in transportation, and that is why we are 17 months behind passing a transportation bill that the country and all of the Governors, the local communities, the private sector, they all need this investment, because our infrastructure in the United States is falling apart.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, our local Coast Guard came to Washington and carried the Florida delegation home.

And it took all day, because the group was stationed out of Jacksonville, so we flew from here to Miami, then we went to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, then to Jacksonville. That was the only way we could get out of the city.

But let me mention to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, after September 11, there was another plane that went down in New York. I do not know whether you remember that; it went down in Queens.

I was in New York at that time. I had checked out of the hotel, and the hotel would not let us back in. We did not know what was going on. And everything shut down, like the gentlewoman said. The airport shut down; the bridges shut down. There was no way out of the city.

I went to the Amtrak station and there I saw several Members of the Senate and the House, and that is how we were able to get out of New York City and get back into Washington, D.C. It is a safety issue. Why would the richest country in the world even consider not having a rail transportation to move people in time of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is truly hard to believe how an administration could state that it is their goal to put an industry out of business and put them in bankruptcy. To me, it is just a clear example that we have gotten our priorities wrong.

I think that this debate should not be between Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. I think this debate, I think it is very important for the American people to weigh in on why they think it is important. One of the things that I think has been a failure is that we have not been able to convey the importance of rail service in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that there is no mode of transportation, including rail, that pays for itself, not only here in the United States but nowhere in the world. Public transportation is just that. We subsidize every forming of transportation.

I really welcome this debate because I think we have been nickeling and diming Amtrak to death, and now we need to put up or shut up. And I think the American people, where 66 percent, not from the blue States and the red States, but 66 percent of the American people said that they want passenger rail in this country.

I want to point out ridership on Amtrak is up 1 million passengers. People are using the services. You lawyers do this, suppose this. Well, let me just say, my position is what happens when failure is not an option. We cannot fail the American people on this issue. This issue is bigger than us. This is bigger than the Congress. This is about the future of America. It is about post-9/ 11 and whether or not we are going to provide the safety that the American people need. We are talking about homeland security. This is homeland security.

We have got to make sure that we can move people and not just invest in operations, but we need to invest in safety, and not just for Amtrak but for all of the systems. Because look what happened in Madrid when the Amtrak was bombed. I mean, those are the kinds of things that we need to be looking into. How can we make sure the system is safe for the ridership?

This administration is short-minded. They have their priorities backwards in many areas. And certainly, I feel that, I guess when you get a 53 percent mandate, you got it going on. But as far as I am concerned, the American people need to understand, and I think it is our job to help educate them on the importance of Amtrak and give them a method that they can communicate to us and let us know that Amtrak is important.

With that, I am proposing that we do a series of whistle stops throughout the country. I think the Members need to get out into the districts, ride the train, and talk to the people that are doing that ridership. And we are working on that, and we are organizing that. And I hope that the gentlewoman will participate because I think that the best thing to do is to have townhall meetings where the people can give us direct input.

This is the people's House, and we represent the people of the United States, and we are closer to them. We have to come before them every 2 years. And so I think this would be one avenue with those whistle stops, to get out and talk to the American people and hear what they have to say about Amtrak.

My hour is up. I am going to close by just saying, what do you do when failure is not an option? Failure is not an option when it comes to Amtrak. We must have Amtrak passenger rail service in this country.

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 Administrations 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.

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

I represent Central Florida, which depends on tourism for its economy, and we need people to be able to get to the state to enjoy it. Ever since September 11th, more and more people are turning from the airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service.

And this is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my state. Amtrak runs four long-distance trains through Florida, employs 990 residents with wages totaling over $43 million, and purchase 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 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.

Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to take over the money-losing passenger rail service previously operated by private freight railroad companies in the United States.

More than half of all rail passenger routes were eliminated when Amtrak began service on May 1, 1971.

Although Amtrak's route system has remained essentially the same size, it represents a mere skeleton of what was once the United States' passenger rail network.

During the period from Amtrak's inception through 2003, the federal government has spent $1.89 trillion on air and highway modes. In the same time frame, Amtrak received just over $30 billion in federal subsidies.

While the United States once had a passenger rail system that was the envy of the world, a lack of capital investment has stalled the advancement of corridor development throughout the country.

Dependent upon an annual federal appropriation, Amtrak's national network is constantly threatened by under-investment, lack of a clearly articulated federal rail policy, and an uncertain future.

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving over 500 stations in 46 states on 22,000 miles of track with approximately 20,000 employees.

During FY 2004, Amtrak carried just over 25 million passengers, representing an increase of over 4 percent compared to FY 2003.

In addition to operating 300 daily intercity trains, approximately 850,000 commuters each day depend on operating agreements with Amtrak, Amtrak-owned infrastructure, or shared operations.

Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is the heaviest traveled railroad in North America, with over 1,700 trains operating over some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day.

Compared to domestic airlines in FY 2002, Amtrak ranks 8th in ridership with a market share of 4.6 percent and 1st in passengers per frequency.

In FY 2004, Amtrak generated approximately $2.06 billion in revenues and incurred approximately $3.18 billion in expenses, covering 65 percent of its operating costs, on par with Canada, Spain and France. No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form of public subsidy.

Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York- Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle- Portland-Eugene.

Amtrak owned property includes 2,141 railroad cars, 425 locomotives, 20 high-speed Acela train sets, a 97 mile segment of 95 mph track in Michigan, a 62 mile segment from New Haven, CT to Springfield, MA, 104 miles of 90 mph track in Pennsylvania, and 363 miles of the Northeast Corridor connecting Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston; the busiest passenger line in the country.

All transportation in the United States is directly or indirectly subsidized. Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. These other modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers.

In FY04, the United States Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget included $34 billion for highways, $14 billion to the FAA, and $1.217 billion for Amtrak.

Amtrak's FY 2004 appropriation of $1.217 billion represented 2 percent of the Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget.

Countries with well-developed passenger rail networks but much smaller populations such as Germany and Japan invest $3-4 billion annually on passenger rail, representing over 20 percent of their total transportation spending.

In 2000, Canada announced a dedicated source of capital for five years to fund new equipment, modernize infrastructure, and improve its existing passenger railroad network. Canada's system is \1/3\ the size of Amtrak's and has \1/6\ the ridership.

The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that investment in passenger rail will reap benefits.

Amtrak's corridor services operate over a 6,000-mile route system and serve 23 states, primarily in the Northeast, Midwest and along the Pacific Coast. With the exception of some trains operating between Boston and Washington, which cover their direct operating costs but not the corridor's significant capital costs, none of Amtrak's corridor or state routes covers all of their expenses from fare box revenues.

Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York- Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle- Portland-Eugene.

Thirteen states provide operating support for 20 different routes, with payments totaling over $135 million in FY 2004. Many states, including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, and Washington recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development, and have spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive ridership results.

Currently, Amtrak operates the high-speed Acela Express service, which travels in the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington in approximately 2 hours 45 minutes, and Boston and New York in approximately 3 hours, 20 minutes. Amtrak now carries 50 percent of the air/rail market between New York and Washington, and 39 percent of the market share between Boston and New York. This is up from 36 percent between New York and Washington and 18 percent between Boston and New York before Acela Express was introduced. This demonstrates travelers will increasingly use a reliable, trip-time competitive alternative to the congestion that is otherwise choking our cities.

Corridors in which states have invested funds to improve trip times and frequencies include the Pacific Surfliners in California and the Cascades Service in the Pacific Northwest. These corridors have multiple frequencies and the potential to become higher-speed rail corridors once infrastructure improvements can be made.

The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that investment in passenger rail will reap benefits.

The route through the Northern part of the country, the Empire Builder, which carried over 437,000 passengers last year, is the only public transportation service in many communities in North Dakota, Montana and Northeastern Washington. For most of the states along the Empire Builder, tourism serves as a major economic engine. A recent study identifying the economic contributions of the Empire Builder demonstrated nearly $14 million in annual economic benefits to the state of Montana alone.

Long-distance trains also provide transportation during periods of severe weather conditions or emergencies that stall other modes of transportation. This was demonstrated after the September 11 terrorist attacks that grounded air travel. Additionally, these trains provide a strong economic benefit for the states and communities that they serve.

The majority of passengers on the long-distance trains do not travel between the endpoints, but rather to any combination of city pairs. For example, the Southwest Chief, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles via Kansas City, has 33 stops, creating 528 possible trip combinations.

Most of Amtrak's expenditures are due to the immense capital needs of its infrastructure, particularly the Northeast Corridor, not the operating costs of the long distance trains. These operating cost figures should be cited with caution.

Critics often refer to the ``loss per passenger'' of the tong distance trains. However, each long distance train passenger is the equivalent of five short distance train passengers because of the greater distances traveled. More importantly, these ``loss per passenger'' figures often include not only the ``avoidable'' costs of operating individual long distance trains (such as the cost of diesel fuel) but all of the shared costs that Amtrak incurs for the benefit of both long-distance and corridor trains (such as the cost of mechanical facilities, Amtrak's computer systems, and stations like Los Angeles Union Station). Including shared costs produces inflated and misleading ``loss'' figures, since these costs will not go away if long distance trains are eliminated.

Eliminating all long distance trains would produce negligible cost savings in the first few years because of the requirement that Amtrak pay labor protection to impacted employees. When these payments ended after five years, the savings would still be minimal: around $300 million annually.

Eliminating individual long distance trains produce even fewer savings: most of the shared costs of Amtrak's long distance network, such as the costs of maintenance facilities that serve multiple long distance trains, would remain. Additionally, Amtrak continues to make changes to its long-distance trains that will improve revenue and finances for the system.

Amtrak recently exited from the mail and express business, resulting in shorter and more convenient schedules, with reduced labor costs. The repair of wreck-damaged equipment continues and will allow Amtrak to increase capacity, and therefore revenues, on long distance trains, which often sell out. These changes should help further reduce the losses of long-distance trains.

Amtrak's right to operate passenger trains over freight railroads comes from the Rail Passenger Service Act. This act states that: Amtrak has the right to access all rail lines in the U.S. to operate intercity passenger trains and; Amtrak trains have dispatching preference over freight trains.

With the exception of trains over the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, Amtrak trains operate over tracks owned and managed by the nation's freight railroad companies.

In the past, congestion on these freight routes has caused delays for Amtrak trains, however, this past summer has seen significant delays and inconveniences to Amtrak's passengers across the country.

Amtrak's 5-year Strategic Plan, which was approved by its Board of Directors on June 10, 2004, specifies that approximately $1.8 billion will be required for fiscal year 2006.

According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, both the now defunct Amtrak Reform Council and the DOT-IG acknowledge the need for at least $1.5 billion in capital and operating support.

Seeking no funds for direct Amtrak expenses and ceding control of the railroad to a

bankruptcy trustee, whose legal responsibility is to Amtrak's creditors, represents a drastic and unrealistic turnaround in the Administration's policy.

Since David Gunn's arrival, Amtrak Total Ridership has increased by 11.6 percent. The number of intercity trains operated have increased by 21.4 percent. The number of trains on the NEC has increased by 29.2 percent while others have increased by 17.3 percent.

Ridership on the NEC is 10 percent and other corridor trains, like the Pacific Surfliner, Capitals and San Juaquins in California and the Cascades in Oregon and Washington have increased by 27 percent driving a 12 percent increase in ticket revenue.

Americans have chosen it as their form of travel in record numbers. In the 3 years post September 11th, Amtrak has proven its value to the nation and has increased its ridership steadily.

Last year, Amtrak carried 25 million passengers, up from the previous year's record. When given the option, travelers choose Amtrak over other, less convenient forms of travel. In FY04 the air-rail market from DC to New York was split 50 percent to 50 percent, Los Angeles to San Diego was 30 percent to 70 percent and Portland to Seattle was 30 percent to 61 percent.

David Gunn has made real progress reforming the railroad since taking the helm in May of 2002. Over the last 30 months he has decreased the workforce by more than 22 percent, removing unnecessary layers on management, increased train service and operation, eliminated and realigned routes for greater efficiency and implemented more internal reforms than any of its previous CEOs.

In fact, Amtrak's core operating expenses are lower today than they were when he took over. David Gunn has made real reforms and has proven to be the right person to continue fixing the problems that have plagued Amtrak over the years.

Mr. Speaker, my favorite hymn is ``Let the Work I Have Done Speak For Me.'' I think that more than anything explains our friend and former colleague, Tillie Fowler. My prayers and deepest regret goes out to her immediate family, Buck and their two girls, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth.

Tillie and I shared a lot. We were in the great class of 1992. We said that was the class, the year of the woman. One distinguished objective to describe Tillie was she was a tremendous fighter. She struggled for what she believed in and for the betterment of the people in the region she served. Above all, Tillie loved her country, and she fought hard to protect it. She distinguished herself in the area of military and, in particular, fighting for women's rights in the military.

I also served with Tillie on the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure, and we crossed party lines numerous times to work together to do what was best for the city of Jacksonville and North Florida. I almost said Georgia because I know that my colleague is here, and he is going to speak from Georgia, but her roots came from Georgia. She came from a political family. One could tell she was a lady, a southern lady.

We all must pass this way, but, hopefully, when we do, we can look back on all of the things that Tillie Fowler has done, not just for the community but for the entire country, to make this place a better place because Tillie Fowler has passed here. When you are born, you get a birth certificate. And when you die, you get a death certificate. And the only thing that really matters is that dash on your tombstone in between. Tillie, let the work she has done speak for her because she has done a great job for our community.

I was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden passing of my former colleague, Tillie Fowler. My prayers and deepest regrets go out to her and her immediate family, Buck, and her two girls, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth.

Tillie and I shared a lot in common. In fact, in 1992, we came up to Washington together as members of the same class of elected representatives. This class was so dynamic, and filled with so many new and soon to be influential women members, that it was referred to as ``The Year of the Woman.''

One distinct adjective to describe Tillie is that she was a tremendous fighter. She struggled hard for what she believed in, and for the betterment of the people and the region she served. Above all, Tillie loved her country, and fought hard to protect the freedoms we enjoy--even the freedom to disagree. Tillie was a woman of great distinction, highly respected, and was always extremely active in her community. She served our country well, particularly in her strong support of the military, specializing in issues concerning women's roles and rights within the military. She was also a woman with strong leadership qualities and one who believed in the value of volunteerism and community service.

I also served with Tillie on the Transportation Committee, and we crossed party lines numerous times to work together to do what was best for the city of Jacksonville and North Florida as a whole.

In closing, my heart and prayers go out to Tillie's dear family during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to hear of the sudden passing of my former colleague, Tillie Fowler. My prayers and deepest regrets go out to her and her immediate family, Buck, and her two girls, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth.

Tillie and I shared a lot in common. In fact, in 1992, we came up to Washington together as members of the same class of elected representatives. This class was so dynamic, and filled with so many new and soon to be influential women members, that it was referred to as ``The Year of the Woman.''

One distinct adjective to describe Tillie is that she was a tremendous fighter. She struggled hard for what she believed in, and for the betterment of the people and the region she served. Above all, Tillie loved her country, and fought hard to protect the freedoms we enjoy--even the freedom to disagree. Tillie was a woman of great distinction, highly respected, and was always extremely active in her community. She served our country well, particularly in her strong support of the military, specializing in issues concerning women's roles and rights within the military. She was also a woman with strong leadership qualities and one who believed in the value of volunteerism and community service.

Even though Tillie worked on the opposite end of the political spectrum, I recognize tremendous contributions Tillie made, and influence she had within the Republican Party. In

1998 in fact, she was chosen by her colleagues within the Republican Party to be the Vice Chairman (or Chairwoman) of the Republican Conference. This honor made her the highest ranking woman in the U.S. Congress at the time she retired, in 2000. She also served for 6 years as Deputy Majority Whip in the Party, paving the way for future women to move up the political ranks here on Capitol Hill.

Moreover, when she obtained a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, she was the only Republican woman at that time on the committee. Given the tremendous influence the military plays in the city of Jacksonville, her appointment to this committee was more than critical. Upon leaving Congress, Tillie worked hard to ensure a strong U.S. military was recognized by the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense. She went on to receive the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award and the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, both of which was the highest civilian awards given by the Navy and DOD.

Additionally, I served with Tillie on the T & I committee, and crossed party lines numerous times to work together and do what was best for the city of Jacksonville and North Florida as a whole.

My heart and prayers go out to Tillie's dear family during this difficult time. They will remain in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative Lane Evans as an original cosponsor, with the Congressional Black Caucus, of this Resolution honoring the Montford Point Marines.

In 1942, President Roosevelt established a presidential directive giving African Americans an opportunity to be recruited into the Marine Corps. These African Americans, from all states, were not sent to the traditional boot camps of Parris Island, South Carolina and San Diego, California. Instead, African-American Marines were segregated-- experiencing basic training at Montford Point--a facility at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Approximately 20,000 African-American Marines received basic training at Montford Point between 1942 and 1949.

The initial intent was to discharge these African-American Marines after the war, returning them to civilian life. Attitudes changed as the war progressed. Once given the chance to prove themselves, it became impossible to deny the fact that African-American Marines were just as capable as all other Marines regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.

In July of 1948 President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order #9981 negating segregation. In September 1949, Montford Marine Camp was deactivated--ending seven years of segregation.

I am joining Congressman Evans in offering this resolution to recognize their service and sacrifice and to acknowledge today's United States Marine Corps as an excellent opportunity for advancement of persons of all races due to the service and example of the original Montford Point Marines.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Third Congressional District of Florida, I am honored to share my thoughts with you about this amazing lady.

Upon her passing, let's pause to reflect upon her life and times, and how she has influenced our world today. During her hard fought rise to the halls of Congress and her permanent place in the history of our Nation; she was on time to fight for truth, justice, humanity, and the rights of the have-nots; she was where she needed to be to raise the consciousness of a nation, and shed light on the plight of others.

She led a battle that was personal, one that was rooted deep in the soul of the oppressed, the forgotten and the disenfranchised. Hers was a fight to make this Nation live up to its promise--liberty and equality for all. This great battle was more than just politics--it was a fight to garner the hopes of the few and infuse them with the dreams of the many. This was the struggle for the humanity of human kind; the reminder that the prize was always in view, yet denied by those who sought to keep their dreams squandered.

As a founding Member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Shirley Chisholm was a driving force behind the Caucus' mission to serve as the `Conscience of the Congress,' and the fight to include women, children, and people of color in the public policy debate that so deeply affects their own lives. It is from her example and spirit that we continue to fight for the ideals that she held so close.

Shirley Chisholm joins the ranks of countless other civil rights leaders to whom we owe our strength. Today, we bless and honor her by keeping her struggle, and our struggle, alive. I will miss her dearly, and both she and her family will always remain in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank the gentleman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for holding this special order.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman a question. I know I will get an opportunity to speak. But I was reading an article concerning the Under Secretary of Defense David Chu, and he said that the organizations that the gentleman was pointing to, the VA organizations, have been too successful in lobbying Congress and that we are taking money that should go to the military for weapons and we are giving it to the veterans.

Can the gentleman expound on that for me?

Fired, excuse me.

If the gentleman would yield further, let me just read the statement. ``Aggressive lobbying by veterans groups that brought about medical care for retired military health brings about this great drain on fighting wars, Chu said in the article. He described it as painful to move moneys for new weapons programs to accounts that fund TRICARE.''

If the gentleman would yield further, my question to the gentleman is I agree that we have a budget, and you determine something about the people of a country how you use that budget. It is clear to me that this President, President Bush, his priority is for the people that funded his campaign. It is not a matter of whether we should fund weapons or supplies that our troops need or whether we should take care of the veterans who have taken care of us for so many years and who need us in their twilight. It is these tax cuts that this administration wants to make permanent. That is the problem. It is a matter of priorities.

I mentioned earlier today that Valentine's Day is coming up. Everybody wants to show you some love. If you love me, you are going to send me flowers or spend some money on me, you are going to take me out to dinner. But it is clear that the Bush administration does not love these veterans. In other words, they talk a great talk, but they do not walk the walk or they do not roll the roll. If you look at their budget, the budget priorities are to their rich friends that funded their campaign coffers, and not to the veterans that need them.

I come from a district where the veterans are not the richest in the country. In fact, one-third of the homeless people are veterans that have fallen through the safety net. They are not getting the health care they need or the mental health counseling or the job opportunities. It is a failure. The richest country in the world, and we are trying to put the burdens of the war on the veterans. Help me, somebody.

If the gentleman will yield further, 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 proportioned as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars are treated and appreciated by their country.''

Now, I think that is very profound. In other words, how we treat our veterans today will determine whether our young people will enlist and commit themselves to go to war to fight for our great country. Profound, does the gentleman not think?

If the gentleman will yield further, for the last 4 years, every year we have had to go through this dance, and predominantly the Democrats have had to fight to increase these budgets. But this year, I guess after the election and after the President and his party have flim-flammed the American people, the gloves are off. They do not care.

Mr. Speaker, the sad thing is that the gentleman is talking about the people's House; and the people's House, under this administration, more so than even when the Republicans took over, but under this administration has been run like a dictatorship. It is very, very sad, and I am glad that the gentleman from Ohio pointed out what it is that veterans can do. I know the organizations are talking to their members because they are talking to me. But they need to contact their Member of Congress and let them know, as Senator and former Governor Chiles used to say, ``This dog won't hunt.''

Mr. Speaker, I think this is bigger than Chris Smith in that it is the House of Representatives that we can change in 2 years; we can change the direction of this country. And it goes back to elections, I have to say it. I mean, what happens in an election controls everything we do, from the time you are born to the time you die and everything in-between.

This veterans budget, I have to say if it had been Senator Kerry, we never would have received a budget like this, or if it had been any of the Democratic candidates and, really, if it had been any of the other Republican candidates. This administration is totally insensitive to the needs of the veterans and the people. They talk a great talk, but they do not walk the walk. They only care about the 1 percent of the people that contribute to their campaign, and if you are not writing checks to the Republican campaign, then just forget it.

But the veterans can turn this around. I know that they can mobilize. I know what they can do; I have seen it happen in Florida. Once before they cut major health care assistance in Florida, and the veterans and organizations and groups got together. They called their Congress people and, let me tell my colleague, not only did they put the money back; they do not even know how it got out. So I know they can do it.

No.

Mr. Speaker, it is a contract. It is a contract. When those young men and women in their prime go and fight for us and serve for us, we owe them. They should not be fighting for the guarantee that we promised them, basic health care, and yet, these copayments and these fees, they cannot afford it. They live on a fixed income.

But, sir, if the gentleman will yield, how many have been wounded? How many have been disabled? They are going to come back, and then they are not in the military system, they are in the VA system. How will the VA system handle them when they are proposing to cut out thousands of nurses?

Now, I know the gentleman has the same problem that I have when they come to us about how long they have to wait in order to get assistance, and we have to intervene. For basic assistance, they are put on a waiting list, and they wait for weeks and months. Yet we are going to have all of these veterans, thousands coming back.

The gentleman mentioned the number that have been killed, but what about those who have been wounded, coming into a system that we are cutting to the bone. It is a failure. There is a Constitution and there is a separation of power. We have a duty as Members of the Congress, of the people's House, to deal with this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman again for having this special order tonight and pointing out what the veterans can do to turn this around.

We in this House cannot do it. We can point it out. We can have town hall meetings in the districts. We will do that. We can talk to the groups and organizations. But I do know that the veterans have the power to influence this body and the other body and the White House. If nothing else, they can put a circle around that White House and let them know that Humpty Dumpty must fall.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we did a poll, one of those CNN polls or one of those polls that we do every day, and ask, Do you want the 1 percent tax cut done away with to completely fund the veterans program, I bet we would get 75 or 80 percent saying, Let us fund the veteran program. Without a doubt, the American people want to pay their debt, and we owe these veterans.

It is not welfare. It is paying for people that have stood up for you in their prime, and now they need us. And what are we doing? We are giving tax breaks to people that contribute to our campaign. And that really bothers me because when you talk to the veterans, you know that they are vulnerable, they are sick, and they need the assistance.

Many of the people that you pass right here in D.C. on the street, homeless, are veterans that the system has failed. One-third of the homeless people are veterans.

In conclusion, our work is cut out for us. We know what we have to do to educate the American people, to turn this horrible proposal for these veterans around.

I think one of the scriptures that I particularly like is, To whom God has given much, much is expected.

God has been good to America. It is important that America is good to the people that have stood up for us throughout the years.

This budget is unacceptable. I remember talking once to the veterans groups and I said, this administration, the Bush administration, talks a great talk, but they do not walk the walk. And this was the Paralyzed Veterans and they said, They do not roll the roll either. And that is truth.

But the key is, we together, Democrats and Republicans, and particularly the veterans' organizations can turn this around. We really need a dedicated source of funding. We should not have to deal with this every single year.

Mr. Speaker, the following is an article entitled ``Veterans Angered By Official's Comments.''

[From the Tribune-Herald, Feb. 7, 2005]

Veterans Angered by Official's Comments

(By Richard L. Smith)

Let me see if I have this straight. We need to squeeze just

a little more sacrifice out of our military veterans. Is that

it?

That seems to be the implicit message of David Chu. He is

an economist who spent the better part of the past quarter-

century as a federal bureaucrat. He now directs the Pentagon

human resource shop as under secretary of defense for

personnel and readiness. Chu managed to outrage some veterans

with his comments in a Jan. 25, 2005, interview with the Wall

Street Journal.

If you believe Chu, money going for military retirement and

veterans benefits would be better spent on weapons. He called

the amounts of money expended on veterans ``hurtful'' to the

national defense in the Journal article.

I sent a list of questions I had about Chu's remarks by e-

mail to the Pentagon. I was told my questions could not be

answered by my deadline. So I extended my deadline. I am

still waiting to hear from the Defense Department.

Aggressive lobbying by veterans groups that brought about

medical care for retired military helped bring about this

great drain on fighting wars, Chu said in the article. He

described it as ``painful'' to move money for new weapons

programs to accounts that fund Tricare, the managed health

care system for military personnel and retired service

members over the age of 65. And, of course, the Pentagon

official said proposals to reduce the reservist retirement

age from 60 to 55 would also not be a good idea.

Chu's remarks did not go over well with everyone, if you

can imagine that.

Bob Clements, a retired Air Force brigadier general from

Carmichael, Calif., said he has a large e-mail network made

up of hundreds of veterans. Clements sent out a message

recently in which, in his words, he ``decided to cut loose''

on Chu. The retired fighter pilot and medic pointed out in an

e-mail missive he launched that Chu knew that military

retirees had until recently been slow to band together to

protect their benefits. He urged veterans to continue to

stand up and fight for their rights. Clements said he also

has been around the block enough to know that such a high-

level official ``is not spouting off'' on his own.

``I don't see how these remarks could be made by a

subordinate without the secretary of defense's and the

president's approval,'' Clements told me during a phone

interview.

U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said he believes Chu was

running an idea up the flagpole to see whether it gets

saluted or picked off. Edwards prefers the latter.

``I hope that Secretary Chu doesn't reflect the

administration's position,'' Edwards told me by phone from

Washington. ``But if he does, that trial balloon should be

shot down by howitzers.''

Edwards, who represented the Army's massive Fort Hood base

until Texas Republicans redrew congressional districts in

2003, went to the House floor after the Journal article hit

the streets and denounced Chu's remarks.

``The fact is that we are spending too little, not too much

on our veterans and military retirees,'' the congressman told

colleagues. ``The truth is that last year's budget for

veterans health care did not even keep up with inflation. So,

in effect, we had a real cut in veterans health care spending

during a time of war. What happened to the principle of

shared sacrifice during a time of war?''

Edwards said Chu's remarks were a slap in the face for

veterans.

``I find Secretary Chu's statement to be offensive and

outrageous,'' Edwards told me. ``It's offensive to every

serviceman and woman who has ever put on the uniform and has

been willing to risk their life for their country.''

Veterans organizations were also quick to condemn the

statement made by Chu. A statement by the American Legion

said that the government's care for its veterans was part of

a moral contract that should not be broken. The Military

Officers Association of America, which the Journal article

called the main force behind retiree benefits, labeled Chu's

assertions as ``baloney.''

If Chu is the Bush administration's canary in the coal mine

of public opinion, then perhaps we are getting a glimpse of

where veterans benefits are headed. Take retirement pay for

example. Chu said in the article that the 19-year-old

enlistee doesn't care about annuities. Young GI Joe or Jane

would rather have the cash to buy a ``pickup truck,'' the

Defense Department official told the Journal.

Edwards calls such a contention insulting to the young men

and women who risk their lives to serve. Benefits, he said,

are part of what helps the military attract and keep the

high-caliber service members in its employ.

Of course, these benefits come from all of the taxpayers

out there and not just veterans. But there does seem to be a

high level of public support for those who are fighting our

wars. Do you think those with ribbons magnets on their cars

will begrudge health care to those troops who return home? It

would seem hard to imagine. Why, some people probably

wouldn't mind throwing in a pickup truck in as part of the

package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the Florida delegation, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and everyone who served on the Courthouse Committee in Jacksonville for helping me to bring this bill to the Floor today. Judge Simpson

was the overwhelming choice for the people of Jacksonville, and it is easy to understand when one learns about his impact on civil rights in the State of Florida and in the entire South.

H.R. 315 is a bill to designate the courthouse at 300 North Hogan Street in Jacksonville, Florida as the ``John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse.'' Judge Simpson was a native of Florida, born in Kissimmee, Florida on May 30 of 1903. He attended local high school and the University of Florida, and in 1926 graduated from law school at the University of Florida.

After law school, he settled in Jacksonville, practicing law in addition to becoming an Assistant State's Attorney from 1933 until 1939. He then ran for and was elected as a State Judge serving from 1939 until 1943. In 1950, he was nominated by President Truman for the United States District Court, Southern Florida; and in 1966, was nominated by President Johnson and joined the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Simpson was an active participant in the struggle for civil rights and was instrumental in desegregating Duval, Orlando, and Daytona Counties in Florida, all in my district. He became an agent for change in the Jim Crowe south. His judicial orders desegregated the schools, city pools, city golf courses, and the city zoo. For his personal courage, he was the subject of numerous death threats and cross burnings.

It is well known that Martin Luther King himself appeared before Judge Simpson and argued for a reversal on a ban on nighttime civil rights marching in St. Augustine. Within a week, Judge Simpson issued an order in support of King's appeal.

Judge Simpson was known as the giant of the legal system in Jacksonville. He was a man of great courage and fairness. It is most fitting that the new courthouse in Jacksonville is named in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill which honors a judge of great distinction and character.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 548 is a bill to designate the Federal building and courthouse in Dayton, Ohio, as the Tony Hall Federal building and United States courthouse in honor of our former colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall. This bill has strong bipartisan support.

Tony Hall is a true son of Ohio. He was born in Dayton in 1942. After attending local schools, he graduated from Denison University in 1964. He was accepted into the Peace Corps and served as a volunteer in Thailand from 1966 until 1968. Upon his return, he was elected to the Ohio house of representatives and in 1972 was elected to the Ohio senate. In 1978 he was elected to the House of Representatives where he served for 11 terms.

Tony Hall currently serves as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture.

Tony Hall was founder and cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center, a nonprofit organization created to bring awareness to the growing and persistent problems of world hunger. He also served as chairman of the House Select Committee on hunger from 1989 until 1993. Congressman Hall sponsored legislation to help immunize the world's children against major diseases and to increase U.S. funding for distribution of vitamins A and C.

His passion for protecting and ensuring human rights and combating hunger brought Congressman Hall to such places as North Korea, Peru, Sudan, Haiti, just to name a few. In 1994 he helped nominate Bishop Carlos Belo for the Nobel Peace Prize for the bishop's role in protecting civilians during armed conflict.

Congressman Hall was an exemplar for his unswerving commitment and sustaining contribution to promoting humanity and peace in a world stricken with poverty and torn by war. This designation is a fitting tribute to his exceptional public service, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 548.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is another example of reverse Robin Hood, robbing

from the veterans, the homeless, public education, public transportation, the poor and the elderly, to give away huge tax breaks to those who contributed to President Bush's reelection campaign.

Let me be clear. This budget is another clear example of reverse Robin Hood: robbing from the veterans, the homeless, public education, public transportation, the poor and the elderly, to give away huge tax breaks to those who contributed to President Bush's reelection campaign.

This administration is cutting the programs that our Nation and its citizens need most, while dissolving the safety nets created to protect the elderly and less fortunate in this wealthy Nation. This budget cuts $500 million in job training at a time when outsourcing has left many Americans without work; slashes hundreds of millions in funding for police and firefighters used to protect local communities from terrorists.

And let me add that since this administration has been in place, we have not funded the COPS program at all.

It doubles drug copayments for veterans as they struggle to get the health care they need. Let me repeat, doubles drug copayments for veterans as they struggle to get the health care that they need. It cuts funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention while we are under the threat of a bioterrorist attack. I do not understand it. Cuts funding to the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program as fuel prices soar.

Now this is a real gimmick here: It zeroes out funding for Amtrak, zeroes out funding for Amtrak, which is the Nation's only mass transportation system. And it totally destroys the Medicaid program, which protects the poor and elderly.

Veterans continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to this administration. And let me point out, today's veterans are yesterday's soldiers. Those are the people who are fighting to protect this country. They are the ones who are getting the short end of the stick.

The budget raises health care costs for hundreds of thousands of veterans, imposing new copayments on prescription drugs and enrollment fees that will cost veterans hundreds of millions of dollars. As America prepares to welcome a new generation of veterans home from Iraq, it is short-changing health care programs, providing about $2 billion less than veterans' service organizations believe is needed.

And the budget once again fails to repeal the disabled veterans tax, which forces disabled military retirees to give up $1 of their pension for every $1 of disability pay they receive. We owe it to the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines who have served as a source of pride in our Nation to begin enrolling Priority 8 veterans into the VA health care system. However, charging each of them an annual $250 fee and doubling the copayment on prescription drugs for the privilege is unacceptable. These men and women have already paid their deduction in their service protecting this country's freedom. Most of the ``increase'' this administration claims for veterans' medical needs come from these fees.

This budget is completely unrealistic because it leaves out countless items. Once administration initiatives like additional costs for military operations in Iraq; Social Security privatization, which is unacceptable; and permanent tax cuts for the wealthy are included, the Nation's deficit, which is the highest in the history of this country, will spiral even higher. This is an administration that not only does not have a plan to erase the deficit, but by proposing to make their tax cuts permanent, they will push the current deficits to sky-high levels.

This is a terrible budget for the American people. The President's budget is the people's budget, and I will fight to ensure that my constituents' priorities are reflected in this budget.

The current 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 Administrations 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.

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

I represent Central Florida, which depends on tourism for its economy, and we need people to be able to get to the state to enjoy it. Ever since September 11th, more and more people are turning from the airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service.

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 crash 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have a couple of questions for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and for the chairman, but before that we have had several discussions about the budget and what the budget reflects.

Mr. Speaker, when you are in a group or organization, or in the church, you can tell something about the people as to how they spend their money. It is clear that this Bush administration does not value the people that are paying the bills. They do not value the people that are paying the bills. All you have to do is follow the dollars. Every single domestic program is cut under this administration.

My question has to go back to starting with Social Security. My question, one, pertains to the Social Security program that we just celebrated a few years ago, how many years it has been in existence, the most successful program in the history of this country. I guess I am the only Member that remembers that the Republicans said that they want to see the program wither on the vine.

Would my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), explain how old the program is and why it was started in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, my chief of staff and I were talking today about the program. He is a young man in his 40s, but his father died when he was a young man, and he was able to get that benefit that took care of him until he went to college. That is a benefit of the Social Security program. So it helps those people that have parents who die, and it also helps the disabled; is that correct?

I thank the gentleman for this discussion tonight.

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the 2000 election, in which my congressional district witnessed the discarding of 27,000 votes, I am displeased to see that the Congress is here again today, 4 years later, continuing to confront many of the same problems we faced in the previous election. Many Members of Congress here to voice their own concerns, as well as echo those of citizens across the county, are engaging in floor debate to publicly enunciate their doubts and worries with respect to the veracity and/or fairness of the 2004 election. The goal of my colleagues is not so much to systematically overturn the 2004 election results, but rather, to bring about honest and open debate today to the House floor. Clearly, a formal challenge to the election's outcome could not change the results, but what it can do is to at least force both Chambers to engage in open debate and

speak clearly about the serious flaws we have experienced in our last two presidential elections. I believe this debate is beneficial for our democracy, particularly in light of recent events that went on in my State in Florida, as well as apparent discrepancies in Ohio.

With respect to the Ohio vote count, I find the objections stated by my close friend and colleague, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, to be most disturbing. According to her press statement, among the numerous discrepancies in her state, perhaps the most egregious included: ``large percentages of rejections among provisional ballots, numerous problems with voting machines, and significant flaws in registration processes and procedures.'' These very serious concerns, I believe, deserve to be discussed and debated by the Congress, in an open public forum in full view of the American public.

In addition, I would like to enumerate numerous other discrepancies that were contained in a report put out by the Judiciary Committee entitled, Preserving Democracy, What Went Wrong in Ohio, about the 2004 elections:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented

long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of

thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters.

Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots

resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds,

of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and

Democratic voters.

Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter

registration applications based on paper weight may have

resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in

time for the 2004 election.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in

preelection ``caging'' tactics, selectively targeting 35,000

predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a

negative impact on voter turnout.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands

of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and

Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of

legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became

discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions

were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican

officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican

Party, admitted the challenges ``can't help but create chaos,

longer lines and frustration.''

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested

absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis

from being able to receive provisional ballots likely

disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of

voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr.

Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained

anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands

of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

There were widespread instances of intimidation and

misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and

the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to

institute a single investigation into these many serious

allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty

under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

We learned of improper purging and other registration

errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens

of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter

Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone

over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a

result of official registration errors.

There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast

for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be

inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two

precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of

over 25 percent each--accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who

stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for

president.

There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities

in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning

county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown

number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County

locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI

warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI

states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting

records of Perry county show significantly more votes than

voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than

voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one

ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded

Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received

more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential

candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker

error may have led to little known third party candidates

receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had

ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas;

(vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and

highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the

precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes

were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous

irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting

and completing the recount that disenfranchised thousands of

voters and call the entire recount procedure into question

(as of this date the recount is still not complete):

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent

standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in

the loss of thousands of predominantly minority

Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the

recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of

both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clauses.

The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted

that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in

numerous counties to provide ``cheat sheets'' to those

counting the ballots (Preserving Democracy, What Went Wrong

in Ohio, A Report Put out by Democratic Judiciary Committee

Staff).

Moreover, in my State of Florida, the problems that surfaced regarding the 2004 election related more to pre election irregularities. Examples are plentiful, examples include: Duval County, where I had to personally fight to get additional early voting locations in the county so citizens could vote early if they so desired; in Orlando, along with many of my Florida colleagues, I demanded a Department of Justice investigation into police misconduct and voter intimidation, in which the Florida Department of Law Enforcement officers intimidated elderly members of Orlando's black community, wherein armed plain clothes police in Orlando went house to house to question, or rather intimidate, dozens of elderly African American voters in their own homes. It is not surprising to me that many of the people that were questioned were volunteers in get out the vote campaigns. Lastly, we saw once again that the Florida elections supervisors were on the verge of incorrectly purging thousands of Florida citizens from the voting rolls, an action which fortunately was never completely carried out because of a CNN lawsuit requesting to see the names on their list.

Let us remember that during the 2000 elections, in my district alone (Duval County) there were approximately 27,000 ballots that were spit out by faulty machines. A disproportionately large percentage of these votes came from City Council Districts 7, 8, 9 and 10, primarily African American residential areas. Even more disturbing to me was that the Supervisor of Elections' office didn't release these figures to local officials until after the 72 hour deadline had passed. As a result, there were no legal avenues to demand a recount.

Moreover, it often goes unpublished that Florida Governor Jeb Bush spent $4 million of taxpayer money to purge a list of suspected felons from the rolls across the State: but whether or not this list was accurate was of little importance to Governor Bush. Apparently, it was the responsibility of the accused citizen to correct his or her status. Only later did we learn that the reason many of the people were incorrectly purged (estimates go as high as 50-57,000) was merely because their name was the same as, or similar to, one of the purged felons. For this reason, during the 2000 elections, some of the local election supervisors went so far as to refuse to purge names from the list of their voter rolls because, they argued, `they did not have faith in how the state compiled its list of disqualified voters.'

Moreover, as part of a grassroots effort to encourage voters, particularly minorities, to get out to the polls, I organize motor voter drives. Yet during the last election, many voters, especially African Americans, were wrongly purged from registration lists, and many who had signed up at state motor voter vehicle offices never had their voter registration fully processed. As a result, these voters were disenfranchised as well. It is for this reason that provisional balloting is so important (wherein if a voter has not re-registered after moving within the same county, he or she may cast a provisional ballot at the polling place of their current residence). Unfortunately, to this day, the state of Florida STILL does not completely follow through with provisional balloting because, in Florida, if one casts a provisional ballot in a voter precinct which is not their own, their vote will be discarded.

To close, I reiterate that I strongly support today's Floor discussion, and pledge to continue to do everything within my capacity as a Member of Congress, and as the Democratic Party's Voting Task Force, to improve our voting system to ensure that everyone's vote is counted in future elections, and that our democracy remains just that, a democracy, not a plutocracy ruled by the elites.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay my respects to Charles W. Cherry.

I was extremely saddened upon hearing the news of the death of Mr. Charles Cherry. I knew Mr. Cherry since my days at college, and fondly remember him as an outstanding civil rights advocate, and a fighter for the civil rights of the African American community. Mr. Cherry was, most of all, an extremely effective community leader, and always stood up for the poor and the underprivileged, even in the most adverse circumstances.

On a biographical note, I think it is important to recognize that Charles and his family were the founders of the Daytona Times, an influential weekly African American community newspaper, and a Member of The City Council. Additionally, Mr. Cherry should also be recognized as being only the second African-American student to receive both a Juris Doctor and an MBA from The University of Florida.

He was an activist and an entrepreneur who fervently believed that underprivileged communities thrive when offered economic opportunity.

He moved to Daytona Beach in 1952 and became active in the civil rights movement, participating in sit-ins and other efforts in the 1960s to bring about integration.

He became president of the Volusia County branch of the NAACP in 1971, was president of the State of Florida NAACP from 1974 to 1984, and later headed the local chapter again. He served on the NAACP's national board for 12 years starting in 1977.

All Floridians are grateful for the leadership he provided and will miss his presence and persistence when it came to the issues he championed.

I will miss him dearly, and his family will remain in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution.

The Republican leadership is trying to have it both ways. When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a budget that was in balance and actually had a surplus. There was no need to increase the debt limit, because

we were actually reducing the debt of the United States.

When President Bush took office, his Office of Management and Budget, OMB, projected that the nation would not reach its statutory debt limit until 2008.

However, due to the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Republican leadership in the House, due mainly to the tax cuts that cut revenue we needed to keep the budget in balance, we are at this place, increasing the debt limit.

In 2001, the budget surplus was cut almost in half, in 2002, the budget plunged into deficit; in 2003, the deficit grew to the largest in history; and in 2004, the deficit broke its own new record.

This third increase in 4 years should be seen as the symptom of a larger problem. What is the response of the Republicans? More tax cuts, decreasing the revenue into the treasury and cutting important programs to all Americans.

This debt limit is not related only to the ability of the United States Government to borrow money. This huge debt is affecting our ability to buy goods overseas, and the ability of the dollar as a reserve currency for the rest of the world is being affected. One day we will wake up with an even larger debt and the Euro will be the currency of choice for the rest of the world. We will be shut out of markets and the interest we pay to borrow even more will rise, costing us more to pay our debt, and reducing the services we supply to our constituents.

This includes Social Security and Medicare. By passing this administration's tax cuts, it reduced revenue to the country by $12.1 trillion to $14.2 trillion over the next 75 years. This is three times the projected shortfall in Social Security. And it exceeds the combined long-run unfunded obligations of both Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, we must stop the bleeding and this bandage will not fix the problem!

I want to thank the gentlemen from Wisconsin and Florida for their hard work on this legislation.

This bill is needed now and the Committee is doing its job by getting this bill to be considered on its own rather than as part of another appropriations bill.

However, there are still thousands of people in Florida without electricity.

These storms had a huge impact on our tourist based economy with millions of dollars lost in hotel rooms alone.

Car dealerships, mobile home dealerships, boat dealerships have been wiped from the face of the earth.

I rise to object to the limited funds available for the small farmers in Florida. It is the end of the growing season and there is no chance to recover any of the investment that the small farmers in my district put into their land.

Farmers are losing an entire year's crop and have nothing to show for it.

Wihle some crops still have time to rebound and get back some investment by the end of the growing season, the squash farmers in my area are totally out of luck. I heard from one gentleman, Mr. Roy Brown, who has 40 acres of squash that is ruined. He has put $520 into each acre, for a total loss of $20,000.

While there is some compensation available, by rule he can only get 50 percent of his investment back. That leaves him over $10,000 in the hole.

Why did it take so long for the money to get to these people? Have they not suffered enough without needing to wait for us to get to work?

We need more money for these people who have suffered from 4 hurricanes in a 6-week period.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard work in pushing for the highest amount possible for our Nation's transportation system. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) who I have enjoyed working with over the past 12 years. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

American transportation infrastructure is in need of sufficient additional funding, particularly as we struggle to finance the security upgrades needed to protect our transportation system from terrorist attack. Transportation projects are also a natural economic development tool which this Nation sorely needs. Department of Transportation statistics show that every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs and $2.1 million in economic activity. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people. We cannot ignore those numbers. Transportation funding is a win/win for everyone involved. States get to improve their transportation infrastructure which creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety and improves local communities.

Unfortunately, we were unable to add a rail title to the bill, but that does not mean that our rail infrastructure is taken care of. We have dangerously underfunded rail security. It is surprising after what happened in Madrid that rail is not a priority in this administration.

By delaying the passage of much-needed legislation, we are doing a disservice to the driving population and the Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see a bill passed. Construction companies laying off employees want to see a bill passed, and citizens waiting in traffic jams want to see a bill passed. If this Congress fails to pass a bill funding transportation, shame on us.