Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the ongoing crisis for those who have evacuated Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and to recognize the extraordinary efforts of Texans. And in particular residents of Dallas.

For the people along the Gulf Coast, I wish to express my deepest condolences.

This devastation has cost many individuals their homes, jobs, belongings, and worst of all their lives.

Almost a quarter million evacuees have traveled to Texas. Seventeen thousand of which have come to Dallas. This is an extremely traumatic situation. Many of these individuals are looking for missing family and friends. Most do not know if or when they will be able to return home.

The one bright spot is the thousands of Americans who have opened their hearts to volunteer time and money. I truly believe it is the personal efforts that make the greatest impact.

During this time of tragedy many heroes have emerged. Local residents, churches, and businesses in Dallas have overwhelmingly offered assistance.

The efforts of those who are volunteering their time at Dallas area shelters have made an immeasurable impact. In addition, many Texans have offered jobs or opened their homes to evacuated families.

I know that the generous spirit of Texans and of all Americans will help to aid this transition. When these dislocated people return to their communities, immediate economic opportunities should be given to them first so they can rebuild.

Mr. Speaker, we now look towards this Administration to exhibit the same type of sacrifice and humanity that countless Americans and charities have displayed.

I question those policies that stretched those National Guard units that could have rendered more immediate aid in New Orleans and elsewhere. First responders have not been given the tools they need. And this Administration drastically underfunded the Army Corps of Engineers, who are responsible for maintaining the levees surrounding New Orleans.

It is time to acknowledge our dependence on fossil fuels--whether foreign or domestic--which set the stage for further economic displacement ahead.

It is neither premature nor unpatriotic to raise questions as the federal government recovers its footing after an initially dismal performance. The point is that even though the government is now showing signs of progress, much work remains.

I can assure the Administration we, as Members of CSC, will do our best to work with them towards fulfilling our commitment to the American citizens.

I will be offering a comprehensive education appropriations bill along with Congressman Hinojosa. There are currently 160,000 displaced students as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The Texas Education Agency predicts that as many as 70,000 displaced students will enter Texas schools this year.

This bill sets up a $500 million fund for displaced students within the Department of Education. From this fund, states will receive $3,000 for each displaced student that enters their school systems. This money will provide funding for additional classrooms, teachers, books, and supplies. These young people have been through a traumatic experience and providing a safe stable school environment is vital.

I will also introduce a bill that would call on the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the displaced survivors of Hurricane Katrina and first responders receive the mental health services they need.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, think of the incredible stress these people are experiencing. There is anxiety. There is depression. There is a sense of hopelessness.

I am a former nurse, and I worked in the mental health sector. I feel strongly that these displaced individuals, many of whom are left with nothing, desperately need mental health services to address the trauma they have endured.

This bill will call upon Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to address those needs. Mental health should not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Emergency response to this calamity was disappointing. When I visited my District in Dallas and saw the suffering of many displaced individuals, I was struck at how far- reaching and long-term these issues will be. Let us make good legislative decisions to help them in the best way possible.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of the Voting Rights Act was Congress' greatest accomplishment in America's long struggle in the fight against discrimination and oppression.

This, the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, serves to remind us of the need to reauthorize and strengthen many expiring provisions. There are many who say there is no longer a need for the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

It is true that we have made remarkable progress since 1965, including: outlawing segregationist principles such as literacy tests, poll taxes, and the grandfather clause. However, we must not relent. There is still much work to be done.

As we all saw during the 2004 elections, minorities faced the uphill battle of misinformation distributed in black communities over how and when to vote, purging of voter rolls, and election day lines where individuals were waiting eight or more hours to vote.

I am proud to serve alongside Representative Lewis, whose bravery and presence during that historic march across the Pettus Bridge in Selma changed this Nation. In this pivotal moment, Congress and President Johnson could no longer look away from the oppression and segregation America had long ignored.

There are many young people who may not know of, or did not experience this battle towards equality. However, it is imperative we recognize and celebrate our great accomplishments as a Nation. We cannot develop future policies or laws without knowing or applying the lessons we have learned from the past.

As we move forward, it is my hope that our young people will remain diligent; remembering the contributions of those who came before them, and finding new inspiration to fight for change.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Chair and ranking member for their efforts, and the subcommittee chair and the subcommittee ranking member. We are so delighted to come to this point, and I know that our ranking member of the full committee is probably so worn out he cannot get here today. But I would like to commend all of that leadership for the diligence, the good works, and the good attitude, the inclusiveness, and the long overdue legislation as a result for the American people.

And, foremost, the staff; I want to associate myself with the previous speakers' recognizing and complimenting the staff because we could not have done it without them.

I thank the Senate for their quick action. I just watched the Senator get up and talk about how important it was not to hold up the bill. But today we in the House of Representatives send a clear message to the American people that investment in America's transportation system is a top priority. This

bill will help to create new, good-paying jobs, promote economic development, address congestion, air quality and highway safety problems.

Since 2003 the Nation has anxiously awaited a transportation reauthorization bill, and rightly so. Each year the American people waste 3.7 billion hours in traffic gridlock, 2.3 billion gallons of fuel, to a total cost of $63 billion. We need to address these issues.

In addition to this congestion cost, the ever-deteriorating infrastructure of this country desperately needs attention. Late last year, the Texas Section of the Civil Engineers released a 2004 report card in which the State's infrastructure received a dismal cumulative assessment of below average.

An ever-increasing population is placing enormous strain on highway capacity. The Texas Transportation Commission can fund less than 40 percent of the worthy road and highway projects; 12,000 of the State's 48,000 bridges are structural deficient, and deteriorating air quality poses an even greater risk to the health of residents, particularly seniors and children.

In closing, I am delighted the product before us is finally one step away from bringing the much-needed funding certainty to our States and communities that have sought them since the expiration of TEA 21. While I regret the investment level falls short of the Transportation Department's $375 billion estimate that they advocated, our committee responded that this investment level represents a good step in the direction of the Nation's transportation needs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is finally considering the Energy bill Conference Report today. More importantly it is greatly improved.

I have had mixed feelings about the Energy bill. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve it. This hard work has resulted in several key changes that will result in my approval of this Conference Report.

One important change is that clean air initiatives were added. My state of Texas ranks first in the nation in toxic manufacturing emissions, first in the number of environmental civil rights complaints, and second on the amount of ozone pollution exposure. The clean air provisions are very important to me and my constituents.

I am also pleased to know that provisions for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have been removed from the bill.

The MTBE issue is also important to me. It is good to know that the provisions granting retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers have been removed.

Although the Energy bill is not a perfect one, the compromise we are considering today is greatly improved.

Because of these changes, Mr. Speaker, I now support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it also. No bill is perfect and certainly this one is not perfect but I appreciate the efforts made to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5, the Medical Malpractice bill.

H.R. 5 may have been conceived with good intentions, but it is a bad bill. It is a particularly bad bill for low income Americans.

If a patient is injured by a caregiver due to medical malpractice, and that patient sues, it should be up to a judge or a jury--not the U.S. Congress, to decide how much compensation should be awarded.

Injured patients who don't get their fair compensation will suffer. They will suffer in two ways. First of all, it's hard to put a blanket price on damages resulting in life or limb.

Secondly, if the compensation is not sufficient, what will happen to the disabled patient when the money runs out? Who, then, will pay for their long-term care, or for the children of someone permanently disabled or even killed?

I'll tell you who will pay for them: the American taxpayer. Those children and disabled people will enroll in federal programs to help them exist day by day. American taxpayers pay for those programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill won't do anything to lower the cost of health care.

This legislation is good intentions that will have bad consequences. I ask my colleagues to consider very carefully who will end up paying at the end of the day.

The American taxpayers--you and I, not the care providers at fault-- will end up paying for the damages incurred from medical malpractice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening not only to celebrate the 15th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, known as the ADA, but also to acknowledge my unwavering support of the ADA and of people with disabilities.

This Act has created positive changes, large and small, for disabled people everywhere. The access ramps we see leading into buildings are examples. Water fountains and sinks are more accessible. Services for the sight- and the hearing-impaired are more common. Employment discrimination is decreasing.

Another important development is that the Americans with Disabilities Act has mobilized the disabilities advocacy community. Since 1990, people with disabilities have grown into seasoned advocates. They have unified their voices and are being heard from the halls of Congress to the every city and town across America. Unity has added strength to their voice and confidence to their actions. And they are being heard, loud and clear. Every year, Congress has considered legislation affecting people with disabilities, whether it be concerning Social Security benefits, education, tax provisions, labor standards, or other issues. The Americans with Disabilities Act provided a comprehensive legislative starting point--but there is still so much more to be done.

Perhaps more than anything else, this legislation has given hope to disabled people here in Dallas and across this nation. The Americans with Disabilities Act affirmed that people with disabilities should have as many opportunities to succeed in life as any other citizen. Its message is one of equality. To the 14,589 disabled workers in Texas' 30th District, and others across the nation, the message is: ``You belong.''

Mr. Speaker, last month a few congressional Republicans unveiled a Social Security privatization plan that cuts guaranteed Social Security benefits and continues to raid the Social Security Trust Fund.

The Republican majority's Social Security plan includes a privatization tax that would cut guaranteed benefits for the people who need it most. This effectively replaces part of our guaranteed benefit with a private account and leaves us worse off, depending on the whims of the stock market. And anybody who has had stock during the last 2 years knows what that is.

Then, instead of protecting the Social Security Trust Fund, the Republican majority plans to take money out of the trust fund to pay for private accounts. The same congressional Republicans will raid $670 billion more from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue this same type of abuse. We urge all of the Members to look twice at Social Security and save it for the people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005

As we move into a new phase of technological advancements, now is the time for significant reform of our postal system. With over 600- thousand postal workers, the U.S Postal Service is an essential part of today's national economic infrastructure.

In my home town of Dallas, TX, the roles of postal workers are vividly seen in homes, businesses, and even churches. We must have a firm commitment to ensuring that these vital public servants have guaranteed healthcare and retirement benefits, collective bargaining rights, and a decent pay.

H.R. 22 will bring increased efficiencies to the United States Postal Service, and strengthen the long-term viability of universal postal services. We must act now to ensure that 6-day a week delivery is maintained for all Americans.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this key piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, let me hasten to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for continuing to work together. In our usual fashion, we have an agreed bill.

I rise today to say that I fully support this bill and also to talk a little bit about the importance of NASA. For decades, NASA has attracted some of our best and brightest. The scientific and technological advances developed by the NASA program have truly been unmatched. From athletic shoes to breast cancer screening, NASA has touched almost every aspect of our lives. It is difficult to imagine what our lives would be like if not for the race to space.

NASA plays a key part in developing new technology and innovations. Underfunding or dismantling parts of NASA will negatively impact new research and technology. We must not fall behind other countries in this field, for this has been a major reason why we have been able to remain on the cutting edge with innovations. If the United States wants to continue to be on the technological forefront, NASA authorization must have a balanced approach that includes a strong dedication to science, aeronautics, and human exploration.

As we move toward a new era in science and technology, the most important aspect of being globally competitive is developing young scientists. We must have a firm commitment to educating our young people. Therefore, this Congress needs a comprehensive authorization that addresses the needs of developing and retaining our best scientists.

During a time of extreme divisiveness in this Congress, I am very proud to say that this bill is a bipartisan compromise. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the manager's amendment. Much deliberation went into the amendment. As I said earlier, the chairman of the committee and ranking member worked very closely together. We started out very far apart, but they worked very close together and we were able to come together on an agreed upon bill.

It does speak to minority participation across the board, and workforce, because we know we have to build a strong workforce to keep this mission going, and the type of research it is and how important it is to our everyday lives. It encourages us to get the shuttle back into space, because that is where we have gotten most of our products and services, through that type of research. We do not want to hasten to Mars, but we know that we cannot stop in research. It must go on continually and constantly so that we can maintain a competitive edge.

All of us know that we will not bring any products to the market or any health care techniques and technologies to the market without research. This is the type of research that has brought us to where we are now. I am delighted to say that this is my thirteenth year on this committee, and I am never bored. We know we need to encourage more young people, American-born, because most of our researchers are not, to go into the field of research so that we can, as a Nation, continue to lead the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. This committee has always accepted amendments and direction to be inclusive and I really appreciated that over the years. I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for putting this amendment up for consideration.

We have in the manager's amendment addressed much of the issue, and I am delighted that the Chair and ranking member have agreed to work to get perhaps more specific language in the bill in conference. And so I thank them for their leadership.

I thank both the Chair and the ranking member for always being open and being understanding about increasing opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Social Security and the millions of American women who rely on it every day.

Women are among one of the largest groups of Social Security beneficiaries who stand to lose a great deal should Social Security be privatized. On average, women live 3 years longer than men. Any contributions to a private account would have to stretch out over more years.

Additionally, the private accounts do not have the guaranteed annual cost-of-living increase in Social Security which would jeopardize the retirement and economic security of older women through the gamble of the stock market.

Social Security is a good deal for women because it gives people with lower earnings a greater return on what they paid in, and women on average have lower incomes and less time in the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time we quit talking about privatizing Social Security and instead come up with ways to strengthen it.

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

First, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our chairman and ranking member, and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly.

Today, we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5 years, to enact a Water Resources Development Act.

I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program. It is critical to maintain a 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps projects.

A biennial cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the workings of the Corps program, often in response to changing circumstances.

H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil works program. It includes major flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and other water resources projects. This legislation represents roughly 5\1/2\ years of project requests and modifications, as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers carries out its business.

As in the past, projects included in this bill were included not on the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be.

Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld solely for partisan reasons. Again, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for working with me and with individual Members on both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects like this, the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions worsen.

I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who cannot be here because he is attending the funeral of his mother-in-law, but he certainly has interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues.

I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues vote in favor of final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I agree to work with this change in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). This amendment is a bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was considered at markup time.

The manager's amendment also contains a few new items, including the contingent authorization of five additional large-scale projects, provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed by the end of 2005.

These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa; a project of navigation for the Port Iberia, Louisiana; a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Union Beach, New Jersey; a project for environmental restoration along the Hocking River, Ohio; and a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Pawley's Island, South Carolina.

Among the additional new items in the manager's amendment are authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection projects in New York State, the authorization of a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana, three additional Corps of Engineers' studies, and the authorization for the corps to participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and which was defeated by a vote of 65 to 359.

The arguments against this amendment are the same, and unfortunately the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this amendment was offered.

I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting additional investment in our Nation's ports and harbor infrastructure, but I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal.

Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the services they provide, as provided by section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and decisions of the Supreme Court.

These fees can be used for services provided, and the construction, and operation and maintenance of, or emergency response services for navigation projects for a harbor.

The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available for ports and States to use for any infrastructure project, including infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor, if the project is for transportation to, from, or through the harbor.

This could be any road, rail, or even airport project associated with the harbor.

It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system.

This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized cargo as a simple source of revenue, in effect, a hidden tax to finance any and all transportation modes.

While I support the efforts of our Nation's port facilities to provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and rail systems that move goods to their final destinations, I believe that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation modes.

In addition, this amendment is described as a way to pay for much- needed security enhancements at our Nation's ports.

However, in effect, the revenue raised by this amendment would be limited to only those in conjunction with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure, and would cease to exist once these projects were complete.

It would not provide a long-term solution to reducing the vulnerability of our Nation's ports.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

This amendment would prohibit the construction of new locks for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project unless the volume of cargo moving along the system increases at a pre- determined rate.

I understand the concerns of the authors of this amendment.

The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project has a history of being the longest, the most costly, and the most controversial study by the Corps of Engineers that anyone can recall.

During the formulation of the navigation and ecosystem restoration components of this project, numerous outside groups, including the National Research Council, expressed concern with the economic justification for the project, including the predicted increases in grain shipments and other commodities that will utilize the new locks called for in the report of the Chief of Engineers.

However, the way to address these concerns is not to restrict the Corps' capability to carry out its mission, but to commit to the necessary congressional oversight on this project as each component proceeds towards implementation.

As with every major project carried out by the Corps, including the restoration of the Florida Everglades, the restoration of Coastal Louisiana, and the construction of the new locks on the Upper Mississippi River, it is the Congress that must ensure that Federal dollars are wisely spent.

As keepers of the Federal purse, we must commit to careful oversight of these major projects over the coming decades to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to keep careful watch over this project, as well as other programs of the Corps of Engineers.

For this reason, I must oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the strong bipartisanship that is the hallmark of this bill, and I especially acknowledge the bipartisanship of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), subcommittee chairman; and the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), committee chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member.

This bill demonstrates the kind of cooperation that too often is lacking in this House. We on the Democratic side do not agree with everything that is in this bill. We might have written it differently had we written it alone. I am sure that any colleagues on the Republican side feel the same way. But working together, listening to each other, we developed a bill that I am sure will have broad bipartisan support in this House when the vote is taken in just a few minutes.

I also take this time to acknowledge the highly professional and skilled work of Susan Bodine, the Republican staff director and counsel for the subcommittee. This will be her last water resources bill. She has been nominated to become the assistant administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency, and I am sure that she will soon be confirmed and will do a wonderful job. She has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in this House with the knowledge, professionalism, advocacy and pragmatism that exemplifies the best of the legislative process.

On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we congratulate Ms. Bodine and wish her every success in her new position.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the Mexican Government for their decision to issue the Memin Pinguin stamp. This stamp represents the negative stereotypes and oppression that millions of African Americans have spent so many years fighting against.

President Fox stated that this is an internal issue for Mexico and that Americans cannot understand the cultural representation of this character. However, if this is how President Fox chooses to depict the black population, this is a sad commentary for Mexico.

This is the first black representative to be on a Mexican stamp; and instead of selecting an actual black Mexican that has had historical impact in that country, Mexico chose a cartoon character that's an offensive stereotype.

This move is especially disappointing based on the commitment President Fox has given to anti-discrimination. This stamp is the type of depiction that sets back that movement and perpetuates racial biases that many Mexicans deal with daily. I cannot see how this positively benefits any black Mexican.

The U.S. and Mexico must work together to create mutually beneficial policies. I'm afraid that this stamp may set us back in creating an open dialogue between our two nations. While we are separate countries our paths are intertwined. This stamp is not only insulting to African Americans, but to all Americans who find this type of representation abhorrent. In the name of diplomatic relations, I respectfully ask President Fox to reconsider his decision to distribute these stamps.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my distinguished colleagues and pay tribute to my good friend, J.J. Pickle. Those of us who have the tremendous honor of serving in this great institution sometimes fail to see the giants that serve among us. Certainly J.J. Pickle was one of those giants.

He was a man who gave his heart, literally, to this country. He poured hours after hours into trying to grapple with the important issues we faced as a Nation, and he did it because he loved this country. He was truly a public servant who cared about the people in the State of Texas, and cared about the people in this great country.

It is rare that we see people in this institution who worked as hard as J.J. Pickle. However, in doing so, he was always able to retain his touch of the common man. As much as he accomplished academically and through the higher ranks of government in this country, he never lost the ability to relate to people on a day-to-day level. To me he will always be Jake, the fellow who would put his arm around

you, smile and joke, and ask how things were going. He was a man who cared about you as an individual and I cared about people.

He loved high-powered debates with intellectuals, but he never put on airs. He was one of only seven southern representatives to vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act legislation. He believed that his most significant accomplishment as a lawmaker was the 1983 Social Security reform bill, which he helped pass as chairman of the Social Security subcommittee. That legislation eased Social Security's financial problems by raising the age for full benefits from 65 to 67 in the year 2000. He could talk to farmers and mechanics as easily as Presidents such as from his mentor, President Johnson and other leaders. It is no wonder the voters of Central Texas kept Jake in Congress for 31 years. They knew a good man when they saw him. They, and all Americans, have lost someone very special.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to recognize J.J. Pickle, a man whose spirit and involvement has made a lasting mark on Texas and this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette- Oberstar amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track.

This amendment restores funding for Amtrak to $1.176 billion, an increase of $626 million. This funding will save Amtrak from bankruptcy and allow the railroad to continue to operate in a safe and reliable manner.

No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form of public subsidy. Yet, unfortunately, the bill before us would essentially end this country's passenger rail system as we know it.

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

At five hundred and fifty million dollars, Amtrak would be forced to shutdown all operations, causing unnecessary disruption and hardship on millions of Americans that depend on this alternative mode of transportation.

Local economies and businesses that have benefited from Amtrak's service would also suffer. Amtrak's twenty thousand workers would be out on the streets looking for new jobs.

Last year Amtrak provided over eleven million dollars in wages for good paying jobs for Texas residents.

Bankruptcy is not the solution for Amtrak. The American people want and deserve a national passenger rail system.

All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers.

Singling out Amtrak assumes wrongfully that taxpayers do want to invest in passenger rail and this just plain wrong.

Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system.

I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail passenger system and vote yes on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Brown-Menendez- Rahall amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track. This amendment would strike current bill language that eliminates 15 long-distance trains and three shorter-distance routes, some of which provide essential transportation services to rural areas.

In the State of Texas, Amtrak operates one short-distance train, the Heartland Flyer, and two long-distance, the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle, which services my district.

H.R. 3058 eliminates Texas' only two long-distance routes. The elimination of these routes would have an adverse effect on Texas communities that depend on these routes and leave hardworking Texans, which depend on the $11 million in wages that Amtrak currently provides, unemployed.

I am fully aware that the money is very tight. We have a war to finance, and we have big tax cuts for some. But let us do something for the heartland of the USA.

Further, in certain rural parts of the State, these lines are often the only transportation alternatives to automobiles. The State of Texas is experiencing unprecedented population growth. The growth is placing enormous strain on the State's highway capacity. And all of us know where that bill is for the last 2 years.

As the construction of new highways becomes less practical, the need for a comprehensive passenger rail system will continue to grow. Passenger rail is a component of this Nation's economic and transportation backbone. Bankrupting and gutting our national passenger rail system is not the way to go.

I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail passenger system and urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their good work on this bill in the midst of an extremely tight budget environment. Both gentlemen have had to make some very unpopular decisions. However, eliminating funding for a proven, results-oriented program like the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative is one I, along

with my colleagues from California and Massachusetts, feel strongly should be reconsidered.

When cities redevelop brownfields, they boost their tax base, spawn job creation, spur neighborhood revitalization and provide environmental protection. Unfortunately, H.R. 3058 eliminates funding for the continued cleanup and redevelopment of urban brownfield sites for which $24 million was provided last year when no funds were requested.

This amendment represents a renewed pledge to communities across the country signaling this body's commitment to creating and sustaining viable communities. This amendment increases grants available under the Community Development fund with the intent that this increase would be directed toward brownfields redevelopment activities.

The increase is offset by reducing the IRS information systems and telecommunications support program by $24 million. This account is $29 million above last year's appropriation and $16 million more than the President's budget requested.

The assessment and cleanup of brownfields are critical to the economic and environmental health of communities across the Nation.

Within the city of Dallas, a Federal investment of less than $2 million has leveraged more than $370 million in private investment and created or helped retain close to 3,000 permanent, full-time jobs. Over 1,600 units of housing, including 134 units of affordable housing, have been developed on former brownfields sites. The program has brought new vitality to long-distressed portions of the city, boosting the tax base, and bringing important economic opportunities to many neighborhoods.

According to the Government Accountability Office, there are well over 500,000 brownfields across the country. Brownfields affect cities of all sizes and represent lost opportunity wherever they exist. Yet, in spite of this fact, the National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment produced by the U.S. Conference of Mayors cites the lack of funds as the biggest impediment to meaningful brownfields redevelopment.

I am aware of the argument that the expanded authority of EPA to handle brownfields precipitated the current cut in HUD's the brownfields account. EPA's guidelines are much more restrictive. However, in my respectful view, that flexibility for our Nation's communities to utilize more than one funding source should not be eliminated. Further, many communities across the country already have existing relationships with their local HUD offices.

I urge my colleagues to renew this body's pledge to American communities and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I thank my colleagues for this partnership opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend, J.J. Pickle. Those of us who have the tremendous honor of serving in this great institution sometimes fail to see the giants that serve among us. Certainly J.J. Pickle was one of those giants.

He was born in Big Spring, Texas on October 11, 1913 and was educated in the public schools. He was a man who was clearly a leader, not only of the people of the State of Texas, of the district that he represented in the central part of Texas, but of this entire Nation.

He was a man who gave his heart, literally, to this country. He poured hours after hours into trying to grapple with the important issues we faced as a Nation, and he did it because he loved this country. He was truly a public servant who cared about the people in the State of Texas, and cared about the people in this great country.

It is rare that we see people in this institution who worked as hard as J.J. Pickle. However, in doing so, he was always able to retain his touch of the common man. As much as he accomplished academically and through the higher ranks of government in this country, he never lost the ability to relate to people on a day-to-day level. To me he will always be Jake, the fellow who would put his arm around you, smile and joke, and ask how things were going. He was a man who cared about you as an individual and cared about people.

He loved high-powered debates with intellectuals, but he never put on airs. He was one of only seven southern representatives to vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act legislation. He believed that his most significant accomplishment as a lawmaker was the 1983 Social Security reform bill, which he helped pass as chairman of the Social Security subcommittee. That legislation eased Social Security's financial problems by raising the age for full benefits from 65 to 67 in the year 2000. He could talk to farmers and mechanics as easily as Presidents such as from his mentor, President Johnson and other leaders. It is no wonder the voters of Central Texas kept Jake in Congress for 31 years. They knew a good man when they saw him. They, and all Americans, have lost someone very special.