Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to a great American, a colleague and most importantly, a friend. Lane Evans has served this body with his full heart and soul for the past 24 years and for his service and friendship I thank him so much.

Lane is an amazing man in every sense of the word. His tireless work as Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has set the bar for which future Chairmen should strive to achieve. As a young Marine serving in Vietnam, he saw firsthand the rigors of war and it helped him to realize that our soldiers must be treated for all the symptoms of war and that some of the worst battle scars are visible but below the surface. His fight to get fair treatment for those suffering from Agent

Orange in Vietnam ensured he would be one of the first to recognize and push for treatment of Gulf War Syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Physical and mental health were not the only fights that he entered into on behalf of Veterans. He also led the battle to get equitable treatment for female veterans and worked tirelessly to combat the plight of homeless veterans across America. His work to ensure a high quality of life for those who have served us with honor will be one of his most noted legacies in this body.

Lane, I thank you for your friendship, your leadership and all of your service to our Nation. I know you have forever left your mark on your Nation, the House of Representatives, and all the veterans who have received better treatment because of your work.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to enclose with my statement the remarks of my predecessor and friend who also served this body with his full heart and soul, the Honorable Andy Jacobs, former Congressman for the 10th Congressional District of Indiana.

December 8, 2006.

Hon. Lane Evans, MC,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Lane: The time has come for me to put on paper what I

have fervently entertained in my mind through the years of

our acquaintance.

To begin, you are one of my authentic heroes. British Lord

Chesterton said, ``Sometimes it takes less courage to die for

one's country than to tell her the truth.'' On many more than

one occasion you have displayed that greater courage in the

profoundly patriotic performance of your chores as a member

of Congress, service quite literally ``above and beyond the

call of duty.''

In your effective opposition to the mindless, gratuitous

and vicarious militarism of some national leaders, you have

helped save the lives of hapless public spirited young

Americans. Thus, you have done God's work most nobly.

For the young Americans who have been forced into

unnecessary permanent combat disability, you have been a

major national factor in achieving justice in terms of

veterans' benefits.

You have also given our Nation bright lessons of prudence

with the public purse. Thank you for being my friend and

friend to all peace-loving freedom-loving Americans.

Sincerely,

Andy Jacobs, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the Democratic Pacific Union which was formally inaugurated in Taipei, Taiwan on May 14, 2005, the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. Notable guests at the inaugural ceremony included presidents of Taiwan, Costa Rica and Guatemala as well as vice presidents of Taiwan, Nicaragua and Palau. The goals of the Union are to integrate resources in the pan-Pacific region for joint development and regional cooperation and to promote democracy, peace and prosperity among DPU member democracies.

Since May of 2005, the Union has established a Secretariat, published its first quarterly, planned West Pacific regional meetings, formed a Pacific economic advisory group, and initiated the Pacific Congressional Caucus project. The project seeks to bring congressional and parliamentary members of DPU together to promote exchange and cooperation among lawmakers throughout DPU member countries. The Taiwan Chapter of the Pacific Congressional Caucus was inaugurated on May 20, 2006 and convened by the Speaker of Taiwan's Legislature Yuan.

My commendations also to the Taiwan Chapter of the Pacific Congressional Caucus. The Chapter will sponsor a symposium on congressional reforms December 8-10, 2006, in Taipei, Taiwan. Legislative members of the DPU, member states and U.S. Members of Congress have been graciously invited to attend this symposium either as participants or observers. I hope that my colleagues will find time to attend this very important event in Taipei and lend our encouragement and support to The Pacific Congressional Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I also commend the Union for its goals, achievements, and initiations which include a training program on hazard mitigation on typhoon-related disasters held May 8-12, 2006 in Taiwan. The DPU has also established a 2006 fellowship and scholarship program providing funds for students from DPU member states to attend universities in Taiwan. Another significant achievement for this young organization is an invitation to distinguished women from member states to attend meetings in Taiwan to identify and address gender issues and problems women face in the Pacific region. The DPU has also invited political experts to observe elections in Taiwan; and established the Pacific Center for Disaster Reduction in Taipei.

Mr. Speaker, due to a flight delay, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 517 through 519. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on 517 and 518 and ``no'' on 519.

Mr. Speaker, due to a flight delay, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 520 and 521. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' to both votes.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 436 and 437. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on votes: roll No. 436 and roll No. 437.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 421-423.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on votes 421 and 423.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on vote 422.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my rollcall vote 397. Due to a fender

bender on my way to votes, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 400-402. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on all votes.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my rollcall votes Nos. 394-396. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to record my rollcall votes 370-374.

Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on votes: roll No. 370, roll No. 371, roll No. 372, roll No. 373.

Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on roll No. 374.

Mr. Speaker, we face a grave and growing threat. The safety of America's rails and subways is on shaky ground almost five years after September 11th. We need to take a hard, honest look at the issue of rail security and give America's rail passengers the same level of confidence that airline passengers get everyday.

In recent years, we have experienced an annual average of 30 terrorist attacks on passenger rail across the world. The past three

years have seen the sadness and heart-wrenching agony caused by three major attacks on rail systems in Madrid, London and disturbingly yesterday in India. These three attacks alone have led to some astonishing numbers, 22 bomb blasts, 15 trains destroyed, 390 people dead and over 1,650 injuries and countless lives forever altered. The shock, horror and loss of life resulting from these acts of terrorism are reminders that the United States must do more to strengthen rail security.

Our passenger rail systems are vulnerable potential targets for terrorists. The 9/11 Commission's final report noted that ``surface transportation systems such as railroads and mass transit remain hard to protect because they are so accessible and extensive.'' Throughout the country, there are over 300,000 miles of freight rail lines and over 10,000 miles of commuter and urban rail system lines. On a typical weekday, 11.3 million passengers use rail or mass transit, and at any given time, hazardous materials are transported throughout the country.

Yet we still do not have a comprehensive national strategy for rail security. The Transportation Security Administration has not yet implemented adequate security guidelines for rail and mass transit systems similar to those required for airports. The Department of Homeland Security does not even require rail and mass transit systems to complete vulnerability assessments or submit security plans to the Department. Nor are we providing adequate funding for rail security. Over the past four years, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration have spent on average $9 per air passenger, as compared to only one penny for each rail or mass transit passenger. One penny to prevent bombs, chemical and biological agents does not go far enough for tools, prevention and training.

It is clear that many of our rail and mass transit employees lack adequate security training. In a 2005 survey of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 84 percent of those surveyed said they had not received ``any training'' or ``additional training'' related to terrorism prevention and response in the previous twelve months. We in Congress must have a frank discussion about our rail system, from AMTRAK, to the Metro in DC, the L in Chicago and the T in Boston and of course the subway in New York City. It is time for the U.S. to implement a coordinated national strategy for rail security, to provide adequate security training for rail and mass transit employees, and to fully fund rail security programs.

I commend my colleagues for introducing the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act. The reforms in this bill are long overdue. We have seen over and over again the pain these terrorist acts have brought to ordinary citizens. We cannot afford to wait until tragedy strikes again to improve this country's rail security.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my home district due to inclement weather and unable to record my rollcall votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on votes: Rollcall vote No. 320; rollcall vote No. 321; rollcall vote No. 325; rollcall vote No. 326; rollcall vote No. 327; rollcall vote No. 328.

Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on votes: Rollcall No. 319; rollcall vote No. 322; rollcall vote No. 323; rollcall vote No. 324; rollcall vote No. 329; rollcall vote No. 330.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remark upon a good man, a great jurist, a wise friend now gone.

On June 23, 2006, United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, sitting en banc in Indianapolis, will conduct a memorial ceremony in honor of an extraordinary man. In 1961, Mr. Speaker, President John F. Kennedy appointed Indiana's S. Hugh Dillin to serve as a Judge of that Court. After 45 years of service, earlier this year in a snow storm we said farewell to him in Indianapolis.

A veteran of World War II, son of a lawyer in Petersburg, Indiana, he came up to the bench in Indianapolis through the politics of southern Indiana and our General Assembly, representing his beloved Pike County and leading the Senate.

I will never forget him. When I was first elected to Congress, it happened that I had emergency surgery at about the time the rest of Congress was being sworn in here in this chamber. A little glum, I watched the festivity of that occasion from a hospital bed in Indianapolis. As I did so, Judge Dillin came to my room with a brief case, introduced himself and produced a single sheet of paper for my inspection, his appointment as a Deputy Speaker of this House, and remarked that he never expected to be so close to the line of Presidential succession as he came that day. He proceeded to administer the oath of office to me and I became a Member of this body and a friend of his for life. I was delighted to bring him to Washington for the next swearing in and a picture of him with me and Speaker Gingrich overlooks my desk today.

He was a giant in the life of Indiana. All of his days he was a man of renowned wit and solid sense-based Hoosier wisdom, forever finding great voice in the resolution of disputes and the teaching of lessons, Much has been made of his stewardship of the Indianapolis school desegregation case which ground on for years, resulting in bussing of children to white suburban schools. A product of our segregated schools, I was always of several minds about the remedy but ended with confidence that he did his very best to follow the law in fashioning a solution. His life was threatened again and again for his trouble and bumper stickers advocated his impeachment, but he kept his listing in the phone book. He permitted the installation of security cameras and buzzers at his chambers but declined to lock his door.

There were many other cases and controversies in the course of his 45 years of service. His decisions involving Indiana's prisons and her treatment of inmates helped extend the Constitution to those so easily forgotten. In closing the disciplinary cells--dungeons, really--at the Indiana Reformatory he began his entry of judgment with a recitation of the Indianapolis ordinance relating to the treatment of pets, succinctly pointing out that animals in our city were entitled to better conditions than those cells at the Reformatory provided human beings. He brought the Constitution to bear on the plight of women who were prisoners in Indiana, extending equal protection of the law in ways which helped to bring them most of the opportunities provided to male prisoners of the state: the chance to further their educations, pursue meaningful job skills, and to be imprisoned under conditions commensurate with the crimes for which they were sentenced.

There were smaller but important cases, too. A local Arsenal Technical High School girl, a fine baseball player, played on the ``boy's'' varsity team. The Indiana High School Athletic Association rules forbade her team from competing with other teams as long as she proposed to play. After a day's trial, as he announced his decision from the bench enjoining enforcement of the rule, she rushed from the room, glove in hand. When he wondered aloud what he had done wrong, he got this answer: ``She's late for practice, Judge.'' That young woman, on account of her ability to compete, earned a college scholarship and an education she would not have had access to without his decision. She is a coach today, I am told.

He was much sought after as a speaker and one speech bears particular mention. On the occasion of his retirement as Chief Judge, I believe it was, there was one of those huge festive gatherings of the worthies of bench and bar to celebrate his career and, as usual, his remarks were warmly anticipated. When a distinguished colleague of his pulled her guitar from under the table, faced him and sang a song about him, that was a hard act to follow. As he rose to speak, though, he mastered the crowd. ``I'll not talk long,'' he said. ``I have just 482 words for you, important words, many of which many of you have forgotten, or had no occasion to study for far too long.'' And then he read the Bill of Rights to the gathering.

He lived his last years in Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the watchful eye of his beloved daughter Pat and was laid to rest in his beloved Petersburg. We miss him but his life and lessons, his spirit and his sagacity, his wit and wisdom, live on in our hearts, enriching us all.

Mr. Speaker, today is Flag Day. It was established in 1949 by act of Congress for us to take a day to reflect on our flag and past. I was 10 years old when Congress first established Flag Day and I have over the years come to a better realization of the inextricable connection between patriotism, the flag and our soldiers in the field. I don't believe the costs of preserving our flag have ever been as concrete as they are today. I hope that while reflecting on the Flag today we spend some time thinking about the price that has been paid for our flag, our freedom and our country. While we take a moment to think about our flag we cannot do so without giving thanks for our soldiers in the field and the veterans who served under our flag. Francis Scott Key summed it up perfectly in the Star Spangled Banner:

And the rockets' red glare. The bombs bursting in air, Gave

proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say,

does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the

free and the home of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, certainly I am very grateful to my dear friend from the State of Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, which does not protect the language added in committee regarding global climate change.

Global climate change is one of the most serious environmental threats of our time. Yet, this House has failed repeatedly to act on this issue or even acknowledge the bleak outlook voiced by many scientists.

Global temperatures are rising. This fact is indisputable. As we speak, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting, and polar bears are drowning in the Arctic. There is a growing scientific consensus that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have contributed to greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.

The effects of global warming are devastating. Approximately 160,000 people die each year from the side effects of global warming, which range from malaria to malnutrition to heat exhaustion in our seniors. If temperatures continue to rise, coastal flooding and drought could occur, and the intensity of hurricanes could increase.

In my neighborhood alone in Indianapolis, Indiana, we have finally got the EPA to look at the fact that it is the environment that is snapping away people's lives prematurely.

We have seen that voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions simply do not work. This bill currently includes language that recognizes our responsibility to establish a national program of mandatory, market- based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mandating reductions in carbon emissions will spur innovation and help slow this moving trend. We have a moral imperative, Mr. Speaker, to future generations to address this threat because the cost of inaction is too high. We cannot let our legacy be one of destruction.

Thank you very much for your attention and your consideration. Vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my home district and unable to record my vote for rollcall votes 111-113. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''