Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on the floor of the House we regularly deal with problems and tragedies. Recently, we have been contending with the horrible consequences of the hurricanes in Florida. But the greatest tragedy in the world today is seldom mentioned here on this floor. Between 2 and 5 million people each year die needlessly because of a lack of access to clean water and adequate sanitation, up to 10,000 people a day and even more tragically over 4,000 children each and every day. Eighty percent of all illness in the developing world is water related, and at any given time, half the population is sick from water-related disease.

Inadequate sanitation makes worse the problems of poverty, disease, bio-diversity loss, climate change impact and general environmental degradation.

In the developing world, 90 to 95 percent of household wastes are released untreated into streams, open drains, lake, rivers and coastal waters and lead to wider environmental problems. Many young women in the developing world are not able to go to school because of how much time they spend just getting the water supply for their family.

The magnitude is difficult to comprehend. More than 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water. One in six of the world's population and more than 2.3 billion, one in three, lack access to adequate sanitation.

We have established under the United Nations' Sustainable Development Conference goals, that we are going to reduce by one-half the people in this desperate status. In order to achieve the targets we are going to have to supply 175,000 people a day for the next 10 years with drinking water and sanitation targets for 400,000 people a day. Yet this is a problem that can be solved. We know what to do. We know how to do it. Yes, it will cost tens of billions of dollars. But just in the United States each year, we spend $61 billion on soft drinks, $71 billion on beer, $23 billion on bottled water.

Do we think that the United States can help provide 4 cents a day per person to be able to stop the ravages of water borne disease? Indeed, if the developing world would step up to do its share, it would not even be 4 cents a day because, already, in these troubled countries people are spending an inordinate amount of money on inadequate water supplies. It would be just 2 cents a day extra if the developed world would meet its responsibilities, less than the price of a take-out pizza every year.

I urge Members of the House to consider this issue. This month marks the second anniversary of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg when we made this commitment--the United States and 185 other countries to reduce the population in need by one-half.

We have a resolution, H. Res. 782, that reaffirms this commitment, commending the President's initiative, Water For the Poor. It calls for increased efforts by the United States and all developed countries for allocating water aid to the communities with the greatest need and to communities where it can make the largest difference. It requests the administration to report to Congress on efforts that we make to keep this commitment.

On the second anniversary of the resolution, it is important for us to keep our eye on the ball, to make progress in incremental steps to help prevent tragedy on this global proportion. The resolution has already been bipartisan sponsorship of over 25 Members. We urge Members to cosponsor H. Res. 782.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I welcome the crewmembers of the USS Ozark back to Portland, OR to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the ship's commissioning on September 23, 1944. The Ozark, built by the Willamette Iron and Steel Corporation here in Portland, crossed the Columbia River bar less than 2 weeks later and played a vital role in our Nation's victory in the Pacific Theater during World War II. The Pacific Theater saw some of the war's most dangerous naval encounters, and the commitment of the USS Ozark's crewmembers is a testimony of their bravery and sacrifice.

In the Pacific Theater, the ship and its crew transported troops for the invasion of Iwo Jima and evacuated wounded Marines to hospitals in Guam. After seeing further action in the Pacific Theater, the USS Ozark was present in Tokyo Harbor during the historic ceremony where the Japanese surrendered on board the USS Missouri. The ship then returned 950 recovered American prisoners of war to the United States via Guam and Pearl Harbor.

I want to take this opportunity to thank those who served aboard the USS Ozark for their brave efforts in the defense of our Nation. I wish them a festive 60th anniversary celebration this week in Portland.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution represents the third time in as many years that the House has brought needless legislation to the floor to ``protect'' the Pledge of Allegiance. At a time when we should be discussing issues of great consequence, like the genocide occurring in Sudan, the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission, and the use of our federal surface transportation dollars, the House leadership has again decided to bring up this stale topic. This time, however, the legislation is not simply frivolous; it is downright dangerous.

This bill, which will purportedly protect the Pledge of Allegiance, is the continuation of a reckless and destructive pattern to strip courts of their ability to determine the constitutionally of the Pledge of Allegiance. This is an outrageous assault on our fundamental constitutional framework. Personally, I do not think individual liberties are threatened by the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Regardless, this remains a decision that should be made in federal courts--not here in Congress. The very notion of this legislation is unconstitutional. It should be fundamentally and decisively rejected today.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House continues to play games with the budget. This bill contains only short- term extensions of many important tax breaks because Congress refuses to face the long-term consequences of its actions. I support middle- income tax relief, but families will only be better off in the long- term if we act responsibly now.

The last 2 years have brought the largest budget deficits in our history and H.R. 1308 will add another $146 billion. New projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the Bush administration's policies will lead to annual budget deficits in excess of $300 billion every year for the next 10 years. In other words, under the Bush administration, record deficits are here to stay.

We can do better for families and those in need by acting responsibly. Cutting taxes while at war is questionable at best. Tax cuts for the most privileged and comfortable while shortchanging education, healthcare, and our Nation's infrastructure is not responsible. Providing short-term extensions so the long-range cost of policies is hidden is not responsible. Continuing to put off a permanent fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which poses the most serious tax threat to middle-income families, is shameful. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the heels of my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and join in celebrating the amazing athletic accomplishments of Lance Armstrong.

As my colleague mentioned, it is not just one person's struggle against the finest athletes in the world on bicycles, or the most challenging terrain; it was a signal event in terms of concentration and endurance to be able to win this an unprecedented sixth time in a row. It was also one person's struggle in terms of recovering in a battle against cancer to become perhaps the preeminent athlete in the world.

Finally, the point I would make is that Lance Armstrong helps us put a human face on the mode of transportation by cycling. It is not just the most efficient mode of urban transportation ever developed, it is something that is making a difference in the lives and livelihood of people around the country. It is a $6 billion industry. Over 33 million Americans rode their bikes last month, and about half a million get to work every day commuting by bicycle.

Last, but by no means least, at a time when we are deeply concerned about an epidemic of childhood obesity, cycling is a simple, common- sense way for young people to become physically fit, while they help protect our environment and learn lifelong health skills.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago this month, over 18 nations came together at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and made a commitment to increase worldwide access to clean water and sanitation.

Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to affirm the commitments made by the United States in Johannesburg, recognize efforts made to meet this commitment, and call for a greater effort by the U.S. and all developed nations towards meeting this public health, economic development, and environmental challenge. Original cosponsors of this resolution are Christopher Shays, George Miller, James Greenwood, Tom Allen and Mark Udall.

In 2002, 17 percent of the world's population lacked access to safe drinking water and 42 percent had no access to basic sanitation. Between 2 million and 5 million people die each year because of this lack of clean water and sanitation, including 4,000-10,000 children every day.

The resolution is supported by CARE, the Natural Resources Defense Council, MercyCorps, the National Wildlife Federation, Living Water International, and WaterPartners International.

Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus I am introducing a bipartisan Congressional Resolution to recognize the achievements of the National Captioning Institute (NCI) in providing closed-captioning services and other media access technologies to Americans who are disabled by hearing loss and/ or vision loss, or who are limited by their inability to read or master English as a second language. Given that communication delivery systems such as television and, more recently, the Internet, play an absolutely essential role in American society, the proposed Congressional Resolution salutes NCI's quarter century of progressive development in bringing media access technologies to the American people. NCI's stated mission is improving access to communications for all, and this Resolution supports the organization's laudable efforts.

The National Captioning Institute was founded in 1979 as a nonprofit corporation with the mission of ensuring that deaf and hard-of-hearing people have access to television through the technology of closed captioning. Prior to this time, captioned television was offered on an extremely limited basis, and the captions were ``open'', resembling subtitles, an obtrusive system roundly rejected by broadcasters and audiences alike. NCI pioneered the closed-caption technology in which captions could be accessed through special decoder units. This revolutionary solution made it possible for both hearing and hearing impaired audiences to enjoy television programming at the same time, and made the goal of accessible television a reality. Since the first, nationally broadcast closed captioned television programs appeared in 1980--an event so momentous that it was announced by the White House and made international headlines--tens of millions of deaf and hard-of hearing Americans have been able to access television for entertainment and news content every day.

With the anniversary of September 11, 2001 this past week, we are reminded of the special importance of captioned television in the case of national emergencies. On that terrible day, NCI's dedicated captioners remained on the air for countless hours over a period of several days, captioning in real time the event and its harrowing aftermath for millions of Americans who, without NCI's work, would not have been able to fully comprehend the attacks and their profound impact.

It is estimated that more than 100 million Americans benefit from captioned programming. These audiences include 28 million people who are deaf or hard-of hearing; children and adults learning to read; and those learning English as a second language. Hearing and non-hearing audiences are most likely to use closed captioning in their homes, although the system is embedded throughout today's society in public spaces such as bars, gyms and airports. As part of NCI's commitment to providing media access to everyone, NCI is making great advances in the development and application of described video technology, a service that provides an audio description of the visual elements of video programming for people who are blind or have low vision, which is an audience of more than 14 million people.

The span of NCI's perseverance and dedication extends far beyond technology for our televisions. NCI established the Nation's only free consumer help desk for communications access issues where citizens may pose questions on topics such as the availability of captioned programming, how to resolve problems with displaying captions, accessibility of closed captions with digital cable and high definition television, and the availability of closed captions in Spanish and on DVDs and home videos.

In addition to its technologic achievements, NCI recently took the lead on auditing how the entire captioning industry is performing. It commissioned the field's first study to evaluate the quality, availability and use of the Nation's captioning services in order to improve performance throughout the entire captioning industry.

In light of all of the above achievements, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and demonstrate our support for the National Captioning Institute's dedication to improving media access to millions of our fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, barely have we recovered from Hurricane Hugo and we are seeing Hurricane Ivan pose the threat that has long been feared by those in Louisiana, that this actually might represent the loss of the City of New Orleans. Located 15 feet below sea level, there is the potential of a 30-foot wall of water putting at risk $100 billion of infrastructure and industry and countless lives.

We all hope that it does veer to the west as projected, but I hope that this brings us to a realization that now is the time for the Federal Government to deal with policies that will make a difference protecting people. Careful planning, strong building codes and balanced transportation are not slogans and bureaucratic hoops. These are simple, commonsense provisions that can save lives, protect property and prevent countless billions of dollars in disaster aid from the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain humor in the Bush attacks on Senator Kerry's budget plans. The Bush administration, after all, has the most reckless fiscal management in our Nation's history. It has produced the largest deficit, after turning the largest budget surplus that they inherited into a sea of red ink.

His prescription drug Medicare program hid the true cost even from Republicans in Congress. His proposal to

privatize Social Security, all independent observers indicate, will cost at least $2 trillion.

While he wastes money on missile defense, he is shortchanging homeland security, all the while proposing more tax cuts for people who do not need them while ignoring the needs of those who do. No wonder he wants to talk about John Kerry's fiscal proposals. His record is indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4571 is a thinly veiled attack on the trial lawyers at the expense of injured plaintiffs. By requiring mandatory sanctions that would apply to civil rights cases, H.R. 4571 will prohibit many legitimate and important civil rights actions from being filed.

No one wants frivolous abuses of our court system. There is no need to sacrifice the rights of individuals to do so. I vote in support of a substitute amendment offered by Congressman Turner that will protect the civil rights of individuals and against H.R. 4571.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I do appreciate the hard work that the subcommittee has been grappling with. Clearly, there is not enough money that is allocated to meet all of the varied transportation interests that we have. I also appreciate that this is a dynamic process and that there is going to be probably more give and take on top of the give and take that has occurred.

I would like to speak briefly on behalf of three simple points. First, I heard the chairman talk about the new starts being oversubscribed and talked about how there is more in the pipeline than is likely to be funded at current levels for some time. I agree wholeheartedly, but I would think that that is a signal, a signal about the popularity and the importance of these programs across the country, the way the chairman a moment ago talked about the need for more highway funding because of the need for highways.

We have an extraordinarily popular and important program for communities across the country, including some that may not leap to mind for people thinking about multimodal transportation systems, like in Houston, Texas, where the voters there just this last fall, actually against formidable political opposition, the voters decided that they were going to extend that program. It simply as yet does not keep pace with demand, but we have a broad and growing range of interest around the country.

I would suggest that unlike the highway projects which are basically an entitlement that are not subjected to rigorous analysis in terms of cost-benefit, I know of no projects in the Federal arena in terms of major capital outlay that are subjected to more aggressive cost-benefit analysis than what we do now to the new starts. I think they meet the test. They are in community after community proving to be the most cost-effective ways of reducing congestion, far more effective than spending a similar amount simply widening roads as has been the case in the past. That is why it is popular. That is why it has been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations. That is why we see it in communities large and small across the country.

I am concerned, because I know that there has been some report language that talks about how to deal with the weighing of land-use considerations. I would respectfully suggest that this is an area that I think the FTA can, in fact, improve its performance; but it is rather, I would suggest, looking at the value of land use rather than to undervalue land-use criteria.

What community after community is finding is that if you do not look at supportive land uses around transportation facilities, without proper land use you can have them be ineffective, you can have a road project that is basically producing congestion the day it is opened if you are not careful with what the land uses are there. We ought to strengthen the land use provisions, not weaken them. That was part of the original ISTEA. That was part of TEA-21. That is part of what is going through the process now if we ever reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act. This is in TEA-LU.

I would hope that we could work with the FTA to balance, to strengthen, to give more of these choices and, frankly, to provide some weight to the economic development potential of these activities. My concern is at the FTA now there is not enough weight for the economic development potential of transportation. I have seen it, and I can give example after example where it has arisen. I would hope that we are able to provide proper weight for it.

The final point that I wanted to raise deals with Amtrak. I am concerned that the Republican leadership, with their Rules Committee, that we have not been able to protect the spending under Amtrak and maybe subject it to a point of order.

This continues an ongoing drama we have here where the administration proposes to undercut it, where there are proposals here in the House to chop it down even further, but it is always restored because it is something the public understands is an essential part of our transportation infrastructure. It is critical in corridors like in the Northeast. It is something that we have historically starved and underfunded. We have spent less in total of Amtrak's entire history than we do in 1 year of highway spending.

I would hope that we not get involved with that charade this time where we go through the motions of cutting Amtrak funding or even eliminating it, because the American public will not stand for it. It will ultimately be reinstated, but it undercuts the effective administration that we see with the new director, Peter Gunn, who is the best I have seen since I have been in Congress. They deserve better and so does the rail passenger public.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17.

Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143 would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S. Department of Transportation hours-of-service regulations for operators of utility service vehicles. This provision imposes a new duty on the Department and the States and agencies. This section is legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, page 32, line 26, through page 33, line 5, I would make a point of order against the last proviso of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program paragraph. The proviso begins on page 32, line 26, and ends on page 33, line 5. This proviso would require Amtrak to repay its loan and interest in full to the Federal Railroad Administration within 30 days; it is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess I share the frustration of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We produced out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a bipartisan bill a year ago that has never been brought to floor action.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing debate that I find somewhat ironic. There is, on behalf of some of my colleagues, an almost theological belief that the United States should be the only industrialized country in the world that does not have subsidized passenger rail service, that it is not an integral part of our transportation system. We have Amtrak today because the private sector that had rail passenger service from the 1830s until 1970 and was mammothly subsidized by the Federal Government to do so, reached the point where it was not particularly profitable for them to do it. Then the private rail roads with Congress and the Nixon administration, created Amtrak so that there would be a rail passenger alternative.

Some people now think that somehow the private sector is going to step in and run a national system so that we would not be actually the only country without passenger rail. Even most Third World countries have rail passenger service as well as all the developed countries that surpasses the United States. I find that somewhat ironic because this Congress year after year after year puts billions of dollars into the air passenger service which in its long illustrious history of being force fed by Federal subsidies, starting with airmail, dealing with air traffic control and the construction of airports, in its entire history has a net profit of zero. And we continue, appropriately, to put billions of dollars into it because it is an important part of the Federal transportation infrastructure.

Now there are those that want to pull the plug on Amtrak. We passed out of our Rail Subcommittee and then our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a year ago with broad bipartisan support, there may have been one or two people who voted against it, in the largest committee in Congress, maybe one or two, but I cannot remember them, that bill has been languishing for 1 year because the Republican leadership cannot somehow bring it to the floor and allow the will of Congress to be worked.

So we have this travesty today where we have a program that is not authorized despite the fact that the authorizing committee did its work a year ago.

This embarrassing charade, and I am embarrassed for the majority party that we are going through this, is not going to be sustained. As George Will pointed out in his column of June 2003 when we were going through the last shutdown charade, that support for Amtrak is strong enough among all regions, ages, education levels, and income groups. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll put it, at the height of last year's funding crisis, at 70 percent American public support. No indication of anything that that is not even stronger today.

So ultimately we will bump along, we will go through this, we will fund Amtrak. Unfortunately, the inability of this Congress to move forward to meet the other body in a responsible fashion and put a reasonable authorizing bill on the floor means Amtrak is going to continue to be hamstrung. You will not kill it because the public will not let you. When we will have a crisis like 9/11 where if we did not have our rail transportation system, the east coast would have been shut down in gridlock from Alexandria to New Haven. Ultimately, this bill will fail, but it continues to cut away at the ability of the new administration in Amtrak to move forward, to build on the strong ridership increase and to build the private and public partnerships with State and local government that will be necessary, ultimately, to have a successful program.

I as a Member of Congress am embarrassed that we are going through this again. As somebody who cares about a balanced transportation system, transit, air, road and rail, I am embarrassed because we need this as a critical component. We will get there, but today's failure makes it harder, more expensive, as Congress is increasingly marginalized.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to deal with just the notion that somehow Amtrak had promised that it was going to turn a profit. I sat in committees and watched people browbeat the previous administration; but what people made clear is that it was going to be necessary to fund the capital requirements of Amtrak.

There is a planned infrastructure improvement over 5 years, reconstructing interlockings; installation of almost a million concrete ties to improve efficiency; 423 miles of track undercutting; new rail, 352 miles; rebuilding of major bridges; cable signal replacement. These are things that will improve the efficiency of the operation.

Congress has never fully funded the capital requirements, making it inherently inefficient and chipping away at it. The Amtrak administration has requested a reasonable capital budget to be able to move it forward to meet the mandate that Members of Congress had for more efficiency.

I would respectfully suggest when we look at the funding that we lavish on the capital for airlines, what we do for highways, only a portion of which comes from the user fee, only a portion of which comes from the user fee, that we are selling this important element short at a time when, if we would enhance it, it would actually reduce demand on the roads. We would also reduce demand in congested airports when now a third of our flights are 350 miles or less. We are not thinking this through in a proper fashion.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me because I wanted to make that point about its capital investment, which is critical if it is ever going to operate the way my friend on the other side of the aisle knows I would like to see, but we cannot starve Amtrak first.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 161, which begins on page 37, line 23, and ends on page 38, line 25. Section 161 would require the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a procedure of competitive bidding for State-supported passenger rail routes, to require Amtrak to provide service in some routes and a compensation determined by the Secretary and to allow the Secretary to reprogram up

to $2.5 million from Amtrak operating funds to support this effort. This is clearly legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Speaker, last night the House approved disaster assistance for citizens in Florida. Our hearts go out, for it is appropriate for us to step in and do what we can. But we need to do more. There is a big difference in loss from storms, floods and wildfires, depending on what people do in advance to protect themselves.

It is time for the Federal Government to add assistance to do it right, in planning, zoning and building codes, if we create the right balance of policy so fewer people are at risk, we are also kinder to the taxpayers. We know what to do.

I hope we do not have any more supplementals where we do not provide assistance to help people protect themselves to avoid these problems in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I appreciate the way that we are reallocating time a little bit to permit serious discussion of a serious topic. I deeply appreciate the expeditious way that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has moved forward with this. As my friend and colleague from Oregon pointed out, we have sort of a special sense in our State, but I must take exception with our colleagues who are rising in opposition of the philosophy somehow if we do not talk about this with our young people, if we do not establish programs, that it is going to go away.

I would suggest that one of the reasons we have an epidemic of teenage suicide, especially among young men in this country, is because too few people do focus on the big picture, what it really means. Perhaps because it is so horrible, we do not really allow the reality to penetrate. But in a typical week in our State, there is more than one teenager who will take their life and about three in a typical day will be treated in an emergency room because of a failed attempt.

Somebody who has worked to bring this out of the shadows and to put a face on these serious tragedies, to spare other families, not to tuck it away and assume that everything is going to be all right but to see what we can do to craft a solution that will spare people is our friend and colleague Senator Gordon Smith. As has been noted on the floor, Gordon and his wife, Sharon, lost their son who is memorialized in this act. This is a tremendously positive response that has grown out of a personal family tragedy.

Frankly, I was disappointed in the changes that were added to this legislation, but I would take this for what it is, a positive start; and I appreciate what the committee has done. We are authorizing $82 million over the next 3 fiscal years. In our great country of almost 300 million people, this is truly a very small and modest beginning, but it is important.

I am pleased that it speaks to the establishment of a national center, so perhaps we will have more compelling evidence for people to step forward and join in this effort. I am pleased that it will provide resources for statewide programs and especially programs run by Native American tribes where that need is especially acute. It is encouraging that we would establish new grants for mental and behavioral health services at colleges and universities. This is an important start, to let these young people who sadly have wrestled with these demons, let them know that they are not alone, let them know that there are services, that people do care and for us to experiment in ways to do a better job.

In Oregon, we have a special interest not only in the courageous way that the Smith family has responded to trying to help other families but ours is a State with a suicide rate that is 40 percent higher than the national average. We all have an incentive to do our part. There is not a Member in this Chamber that has not either been touched directly in their family or by people

close to them that they know and love. We have had cases on the floor of our colleagues just in the short time that I have been in Congress.

I am hopeful that we can seize on the opportunity to approve and then improve this legislation, build upon it and to share in carrying this message to Congress and through Congress back to our communities. By our action, we can join the Smith family to help spare others this pain in the future. I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).