Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I am proud to be a Vietnam veteran. I am proud to have spent almost 4 years in that country with the U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency, but I was not proud when Members of Congress, Members of this body, criticized us in the course of that war publicly back here at home. Their critical comments were demoralizing and undercut our efforts. It encouraged our enemy, and it placed us at risk.

At some point in the 1970s, our national will broke down, we cut and ran. We left our friends behind, my colleagues, my counterparts. And we abandoned Southeast Asia to unprecedented slaughter and destruction.

Now 30 years later I find myself on this same floor talking about the ``immediate redeployment'' of our troops from a foreign battlefield where they are fully engaged in a difficult and dangerous mission.

More than anyone else, this Vietnam veteran wants to see our troops come home safely, successfully and soon. But now is not the time for immediate withdrawal. Now is the time to support our troops and the values they fight for.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mrs. Rosa Lee Parks.

Mrs. Parks's refusal to give up her seat to a white man on a bus in Alabama in 1955 triggered a 381-day boycott of buses, organized by the then little-known Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. She did so without knowing the support she would rally.

Her single act of quiet courage and defiance on that December day undeniably became a watershed moment in the history of U.S. civil rights.

It's most fitting that at today's funeral in Detroit, R&B legend Aretha Franklin sang ``The Impossible Dream'' in honor of Mrs. Parks. It was that action nearly 50 years ago that sparked what seemed at the time to be the impossible dream of the modern civil rights movement, culminating in the 1964 federal Civil Rights Bill.

In 1996, Mrs. Parks received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded to civilians who make outstanding contributions to American life. In 1999, she was awarded the Congressional gold medal, the nation's highest civilian honor.

Mr. Speaker, with the permission of this House, I would like to enter into the Record the words of a civil rights leader in my community, the Rev. Dr. Benjamin K. Watts, Pastor of the Shiloh Baptist Church in New London (CT).

``Rosa Parks was a woman of character, commitment and

courage. When she sat down the world stood up against

injustice, bigotry and hatred. Mrs. Parks was not the first

to refuse to live down to the status quo of inequality yet

because of her unimpeachable character she unwittingly became

a spark that ignited the flame of passion that created

ultimate change. Like Jackie Robinson breaking the color

barrier in baseball, the right character was necessary in

order to break the back of racism. Her commitment to social

justice gave her iconoclastic status as the epitome of

courage and commitment. Her passing leaves a void in civil

society that each one of us should seek to fill by living

lives of high moral value always refusing to sit at the back

of the bus of life and ready to accept our place at the

forefront of the battle for social change.''--Rev. Dr.

Benjamin K. Watts

Mrs. Rosa Lee Parks, this great American hero, deserves not only our tributes and gratitude, but our continuing commitment to peace, justice, equality, and freedom for all.

May God rest her soul.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition today to H.J. Res. 65, a resolution to disapprove the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I oppose this resolution not because I support this BRAC round and the closure and realignment of these bases, but because the Department of Defense should not be authorized to execute another one anytime soon. A no vote on this resolution will spare the Armed Forces, our defense budget and our base communities the unnecessary stress of another BRAC round if the current recommendations are approved.

I opposed this BRAC round from the start for several reasons.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, were--and remain--a nation at war. We have troops abroad fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and globally as part of a broader war on terrorism. I argued that we need to focus all of our energy on supporting those troops in the field. We should not be distracted with the complicated burden of realigning our whole military base structure.

In October of 2003, I went to Iraq and learned that the troops desperately needed armor on their vehicles. In November of 2003 the Secretary of the Army said that getting armor into the field was a ``top priority''. And yet today there are still tens of thousands of vehicles that are still not armored.

Just last week the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the issue. Chairman Hunter discovered that the Army was sitting on hundreds of armored humvees in Texas and Kuwait. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Congress would have unearthed this hidden problem earlier had it not been faced with the time-consuming BRAC process.

I opposed BRAC because we need to recapitalize our aging defense platforms and our shrinking fleets. Our Armed Forces have been on a strict diet because of a procurement holiday that has been in effect since the end of the Cold war.

Mr. Chairman, the average age of an Air Force bombers is over 30 years old. The average pilot is younger than his aircraft. Yet there are planned procurement cuts to the F-22 program. We have been living on the Reagan buildup of the 1980s, but those systems are all nearing retirement. What's left from the 80s is old and undependable. This threatens our military readiness and the safety of our service members.

Mr. Chairman, this year the Navy planned on building only four ships--the same as Canada and less than most of our European allies. If we stay on this track, our fleet will shrink from a little under 300 to just 120. China is on no such diet. Its shipbuilding rates are so high that its fleet win overtake ours by about 2015. By that time, China will have twice as many submarines as the U.S.

I also opposed BRAC because our strategic environment remains in flux. The threats from North Korea, China and Iran are rising while we are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We benefited from neither the Quadrennial Defense Review nor the report of the Overseas Basing Commission because they were not yet delivered. How could we know, what our Nation's future basing requirements will be? We couldn't!

I opposed BRAC because DOD still maintained dozens of bases that were slated for closure that remain open. How could we target another 100 bases when we had a hundred waiting on death row? Closing bases costs billions of dollars in environmental clean up costs. The Department of Defense cannot dispose of this property until it is clean. But the investment of these ``clean-up'' dollars takes dollars away from our troops in the field during war.

I opposed this BRAC round because we have hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East, Europe and Korea that will hopefully return home soon.

Congress authorized the BRAC round anyway. The Department of Defense relatively little time to develop a set of recommendations for the President. Not surprisingly, some mistakes were made. The biggest mistake was the recommendation to close Naval Submarine Base New London, the world's greatest center of excellence for undersea warfare. My good friend, the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, noted that the BRAC round so suffered from secondary agendas designed to achieve policy outcomes under cover of base closure and realignment. I agree with him.

The BRAC Commission had even less time than the Pentagon, but was ultimately able to fix the largest mistakes. Chairman Anthony Principi's commission took New London and other bases off of the list after looking at the big picture. They looked at the overall effects on the Nation and the individual services. They listened to the arguments of outside experts. They considered the advice of key defense industry partners, senior retired officers, Members of Congress, and even a former U.S. president. In the end the BRAC Commission gave the President and Congress a good product given the circumstances.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will vote no on the resolution because the BRAC solution before us is the best of a bad situation. It would have been better never to have attempted this round of base closures. Our military is no better for it, and our Nation is no safer. Nevertheless, a vote for yes is a vote for another, painful and counterproductive BRAC round that will drain resources and time from the critical tasks at hand.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces great national security challenges right now. For this reason, I will vote to put BRAC behind us today and for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably delayed in a meeting at the Pentagon, and was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 515 and 516.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 515, the rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3893 and ``yea'' on rollcall 516, approving the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a great pleasure for me to be here tonight to speak in support of our wonderful Coast Guard and the great things that they have done, not only in response to the terrible storm, Hurricane Katrina, but also the many things that they have done over the years to keep our people and our homeland more secure.

It is also nice to gather in a bipartisan fashion not to point fingers of blame, but to speak words of praise, because I think that is very appropriate. The time will come when the various oversight panels, commissions and committees, our own oversight committees will do the job of looking into what has gone wrong; but I think it is easy for us to gather here tonight and point out some of the things that have gone right.

The distinguished coastie to my left, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a Coast Guard person many years ago, not too many years ago, but a few years ago, pointed out the motto is ``Semper Paratus,'' always ready. They prepare their young men and young women in one of the finest institutions we have in this country, which is the Coast Guard Academy in New London, and I quickly say that the number of applications for that fine academy, for positions available, exceeds the number of applications that you get for your very fine Harvard college in Massachusetts and my very fine university in Connecticut.

In fact, of all colleges across the country, the Coast Guard Academy receives more applications for positions available than any other college in the country. It is a testament to the quality of education that they get there. It is a testament to the fine young men and women who graduate.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. When we talk about being prepared or always being prepared, that preparation does begin for many of our Coast Guard officers at the academy. Of course then you have the OCS, which is also located at the academy. You have senior officer training, and you have leadership training for the noncommissioned officers in the Coast Guard.

So they are prepared. They are prepared to deal with difficult and dangerous situations. They are prepared to deal with fishermen at sea to make sure that our fisheries are regulated. They are prepared to deal with the recreational boaters that we have off the coast of Massachusetts, we have in Connecticut, and I suspect those are off the coast of North Carolina as well; and when those recreational boaters find themselves in difficulty, the Coast Guard is there.

They were prepared on 9/11, and when I went to New York City a few days after the attacks of 9/11, it was a Coast Guard cutter in the harbor of the Hudson River and a Coast Guard helicopter that was flying overhead, so a very quick and immediate response.

On Wednesday of the week of Hurricane Katrina, the day after the levees broke, I received a call from a friend of mine who lived in New Orleans, Louisiana, and he called to ask for my help to intervene in getting some Federal response down there as soon as possible. The next morning when I called him back, he said he had received a call from the Coast Guard, that he had called them and they called him back and that two Coast Guard vessels were in the process of clearing the channel up into Louisiana to provide supplies, food, fuel and all of the things that were necessary, and that they had done it within 24 hours of the breaking of the levees. So it was a Federal response that was immediate and directed to assist people in distress.

The results speak for themselves. There were 24,135 lives saved; 33,544 individuals saved or evacuated. And 12,000 of those were saved by air resources. That means helicopters with long lines down into tree tops and roof tops, which is, by the way, a very dangerous undertaking not only for the individual on the end of the line but for the helicopter pilot and the crew because often they have to hover over power lines or trees where they can strike and crash. But none of those things took place.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) again for raising these issues tonight.

When we consider the flexibility of these men and women in addressing a problem that perhaps they had not seen before, and yet they did it successfully, they heard noises from the attics and rooftops, and they addressed those problems' need immediately. They

broke through and were able to bring people out. It is a great testament to the service and to their willingness to risk their lives and their safety to save others. That always has characterized the Coast Guard.

I think it is a testament to the excellence of this service that when it became clear that the Federal response was not producing the results that we all would have wanted in that circumstance, for reasons which will be determined at some future date, who was named to take over? It was Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen, chief of staff, third-ranking man in the Coast Guard, somebody I have met and known before, somebody who has had distinguished sea duties, somebody who actually headed up the Long Island Sound Station for a number of years. He is a highly educated, highly experienced, highly trained man with a somewhat low profile, but the capability to get the job done. That is so typical of our Coast Guard, that they are not out there with a lot of flash and a lot of pizzazz; but they get the job done, and that is so important.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly to that. I have had the honor for the last 4\1/2\, 5 years, to serve on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. We initially supported the recommendations that were made by Admiral Loy, when he was commandant, to initiate the Deepwater project, which was the most ambitious recapitalization project in probably the whole history of the Coast Guard. And I am looking at the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). We might consider him a legacy asset as well, because his historic knowledge of the Coast Guard is so substantial. But I will tell the Members he is just as sharp today as he has ever been; so some legacies are good. But one of the key considerations that we had when we bought on to the Deepwater project was, would the Coast Guard be able to implement this program successfully, and it was a very ambitious program, implement it successfully over a period of years? Certainly the subcommittee and the full committee under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) have been extremely supportive. On occasions there has been some slippage in the funding, and we have tried to address that as a body. We know that the Coast Guard has to submit through OMB and that there are always challenges in doing that. But I think that this Congress has committed itself in a bipartisan fashion to the Deepwater project, and I think that we are beginning to see the phasing out of some of those legacy assets. My recollection is a year or so ago, we took over 100 small vessels out of the inventory and have been replacing them with more capable boats, which I think is tremendously important.

But also something that many Americans do not focus on when it comes to the role of the Coast Guard in homeland security and in dealing both with natural disasters and manmade disasters like 9/11 is we anticipate that there may be a breakdown of civil order in an area that is hit by a disaster of this sort. That is just something that we expect. And the Coast Guard, unlike the military, is not restrained by posse comitatus. The Coast Guard has arrest powers. They exercise those arrest powers in the war on drugs, where they operate in the Caribbean and elsewhere, and they are allowed to board ships and to arrest. They can exercise those powers in issues such as smuggling or other illegal activities. But, in fact, the Coast Guard has the capacity to go into an area that has been devastated by a natural or a man-made disaster where civil order has broken down, where there is no communication, where police cannot talk to firemen, firemen cannot talk to police. They can actually go in and they can arrest those who are doing harm and save those who need to be saved. And that is a unique capacity for our Coast Guard, and it reflects a very important capability as we look to the future of homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, a very sad moment in our history, but a moment where, once again, the Coast Guard was there and got the job done, the gentleman may recall just a few years ago the son of the late President Kennedy was flying an aircraft along the New England Coast, accompanied by his wife and his wife's sister. And, tragically, the aircraft went down just to the west of Block Island at the mouth of Long Island Sound. And it was a terrible event for all of us who remembered his father and the terrible tragedy of his father's death, and now it seemed that once again this family was in distress and that something terrible had happened to them. But the Coast Guard from our New London station and the Coast Guard from the Long Island Sound station moved out there very quickly and very efficiently. They set up staging areas offshore. They were able to locate the aircraft and to recover the aircraft in what was a sad moment but an important moment in our history, and they did it in a fashion that was respectful, that respected the Kennedy family, and also respected the emotions of all Americans who followed that tragic case for a couple of days, and they did it without fanfare and without a lot of hoopla. They just went about their business and got it done.

Mr. Speaker, are we getting close to the end of our time?

Well, I have a concluding remark, and I think the gentleman from North Carolina does as well.

That is what we call a very ``appropriate'' comment.

Two concluding remarks, and I thank the gentleman for this Special Order.

The first is that approximately 2,200 active duty Coast Guard members and their families live and work in the area of Katrina, and many of those 2,000 families, Coast Guard families, active-duty Coast Guard families lost their homes and discovered that their families were evacuees, just as much as were citizens along the gulf coast. Yet in spite of that distress, they continue to perform in an outstanding fashion.

The Coast Guard Foundation, which is located in my hometown of Stonington, Connecticut, put out a press release that all retirees and all folks who participate in supporting the Coast Guard Foundation are invited to provide financial assistance, and they hope to raise about $1 million of financial assistance to help those active duty families to recover with incidentals and costs that may not be covered as a routine matter.

So once again, it is an example of the Coast Guard family reaching out to take care of their own, to provide assistance, which is so much a part of the tradition of the Coast Guard.

Finally, I am most honored as an Army officer to be here with these distinguished Coast Guard officers and ``Coasties,'' but I will share with my colleagues a personal story. My wife's father was in the Coast Guard, was the captain of the New London Port for a period during World War II, and then did convoy duty across the Atlantic for about 3\1/2\ years. So I feel a little bit of the tradition of the Coast Guard; and as we work to assist and support the next generation of Coasties, I think back to my father-in-law and his generation and all of the great things that they did.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from North Carolina for inviting me to participate.

Mr. Speaker, the foundation is located in Stonington, Connecticut, and their phone number is 860-535-0786, or they can call my office and we would be happy to put them in touch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements and service of Willimantic Fire Department Chief John Walsh, who has served the Connecticut community of Willimantic for more than two decades. He has served as a firefighter for more than 50 years.

Chief Walsh began his career as a volunteer firefighter in 1954. In January 1960 he joined the Hartford Fire Department where he demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and ability. In 1968 he was promoted to Lieutenant and in 1980 he achieved the rank of Captain. In December 1983 he became Chief of the Willimantic Fire Department.

His work on behalf of his fellow firefighters extended beyond the community. In 1988 and 1989 he was President of the Connecticut Fire Chiefs and he is a member of the New England Fire Chiefs and the National Fire Protection Association.

Firefighters are on call seven days a week, 12 months a year. There are no holidays for firefighters. Tragedy never takes a holiday and when it strikes a community, firefighters are among the first to respond.

Individuals are not recognized for what they have taken but for what they have given. Chief John Walsh's family, colleagues and friends honor him for what he has given to his community. I am proud to add my voice to theirs. Through his commitment and character he has made Willimantic a better place in which to live, work and raise a family.

Thank you, Chief Walsh, for your service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, today we have approved $10.5 billion in Federal funding to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This is one of the largest natural disasters to ever hit the United States, and it is essential that Federal, State and local governments work together in a bipartisan fashion to provide the relief that is vitally needed.

As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I recognize the important job that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has to coordinate disaster relief and life-saving efforts. The funding that we provide here today will go a long way to supporting that effort.

The effort to recover the Gulf Coast is costing FEMA $750 million a day. At that rate, we anticipated we would run out of funding by next Tuesday, so it is critical that we deliver this help today, and we have.

Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, but this is not just a Gulf Coast disaster. We are all in this together. We are all Americans. We all want to help our fellow citizens.

Back home in my State of Connecticut, Governor Rell and Members of the delegation are taking action. We have activated 100 National Guard troops with experience as military police to try to help regain civil order in New Orleans. In addition, the governor has added four colleges in our State university system to offer free tuition and space to students from Connecticut who otherwise were studying at colleges that have been demolished by the storm.

The governor has called upon Connecticut residents to do what they can to help, and they are responding. Around the State, civic groups, churches, businesses, and individuals are collecting bottled water, blankets, batteries and other essentials to ship into the region.

Just this morning, my wife, Heidi, dropped off food and baby formula at the New London armory in an effort to help. Others are doing the same.

Hurricane Katrina has given America a tremendous challenge. Family members cannot contact loved ones and are unaware of their condition and their fate. There are sanitation and health problems that must be addressed. People are homeless and need to be evacuated. Children are out of school and need to get back into school.

The hurricane and the ensuing flood were deadly, disruptive and costly. We must respond as a people and stay united in that response. Just as we recovered from the man-made disaster of 9/11 a few years ago, so we will recover from this natural disaster as well, if we work together. If we are divided, we fail. We fail ourselves, we fail those who look to us and who need us and we fail the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably detained in a meeting regarding the Base Realignment and Closure process affecting SUBASE New London in my district, and was unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall votes 390 and 394.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 290, an amendment offered by Rep. King (IA), and ``yea'' on rollcall 294, an amendment offered by Rep. Watson.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the service and sacrifice of a brave young soldier from my district, SPC Christopher Lee Hoskins, who gave his life in the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq. I also pay tribute to SPC Hoskins' family, who raised this fine young man in an environment of loving care and who supported his decision to serve his country in uniform in Iraq.

On June 21, Army SPC Christopher Hoskins, of Killingly, Connecticut, was killed in Ramadi, Iraq, after his unit came under small arms fire west of Baghdad. The death of SPC Hoskins, who was a member of the Army's 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, marked the 25th death of a Connecticut soldier in the war in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

SPC Hoskins was 21 years old. He, along with so many other fine young men and women from across our Nation, was serving America and the cause of freedom by fighting terrorism and helping to bring stability to a part of the world that for far too long has known mainly violence and misery.

SPC Hoskins graduated from Killingly High School in 2001. He enlisted in the Army in 2003. He had recently re-enlisted for another four years.

In many ways, SPC Hoskins was typical of most American youths. His friends recalled that he was generous and polite; he enjoyed listening to Metallica; he played chess and was a member of his high school wrestling team; he enjoyed painting and he worked the cameras at school plays.

And in many ways he was typical of the men and women who preceded him as members of our Nation's armed forces. This was a young man who wanted to serve a cause larger than himself.

This was a young man who did not have to place himself in harm's way but volunteered to do so in service to our Nation, our people and the way of life that we treasure. America is a better place because of young men like Army SPC Christopher Hoskins.

We cannot repay the debt we owe Christopher Hoskins; we can only honor him and his family. And we do.

Memorial Day was set aside as the day when Americans remember those who left their homes, families and jobs to defend our Nation--and never returned. But our men and women in uniform defend freedom every day, and every day there are those who pay the ultimate price for their selflessness. It would be highly appropriate if we took a moment out of every day to honor and remember the men and women who stand between America and those who would do her harm.

Today, July 14, 2005 SPC Hoskins was interred at Arlington National Cemetery overlooking Washington, D.C. with full military honors. He will posthumously receive a Purple Heart for his wounds and a Bronze Star for his valor. SPC Hoskins will rest in good company, among others who answered the call to duty, honor and country.

We pray that the service and sacrifice of SPC Hoskins will remind us of the high cost which is paid by those who love our freedom, who believe in our democracy and who give their best to defend the best Nation on Earth. May God rest his soul.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment is very straightforward. It simply requires that the collection of Federal taxes will continue to be done by officials of the IRS and not by private contractors. This amendment is similar to one that was introduced by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) last year and passed by voice vote, although it was ultimately taken out of the bill in conference.

I think all of us, Mr. Chairman, want a Federal system that efficiently collects taxes, but we cannot do it at the expense of taxpayers' rights or privacy. If the IRS is allowed to go forward with the outsourcing of tax collection, millions of taxpayer files will be made available to private debt collection companies. These companies, in turn, will collect up to a 25 percent fee for any collections from American taxpayers.

This type of incentive system on the part of collectors is ripe for abuse and ripe for harassment, which is why the IRS specifically prohibits its own employees from being engaged in a quota system with regard to tax collection.

Mr. Chairman, each year millions of Americans voluntarily disclose sensitive personal information to the IRS with the expectation that it will be handled with the utmost discretion and care, that it will be protected from erroneous or deliberate disclosure outside the IRS. Yet current law allows the IRS to disclose this information to third-party contractors. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Do we really want to release commission-hungry tax collection agents on the American public? Is this really good public policy?

Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are concerned about identity theft, we should not be in the business of putting sensitive information into the hands of private contractors. Just today, the Washington Post did an editorial, Have You Been Stolen? And it says, ``Once your name, date of birth, address and Social Security number go astray, you are permanently at risk.''

Yet, if we do not pass this amendment that I have offered here today, millions of American taxpayers will be permanently at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, in those 30 seconds I would like to say that taxes today are complicated. Senior citizens have problems with them. Single moms have problems with them. Small business owners have problems with them. Mistakes can be made. But the collection should not be turned over to commission-based bounty hunters. We should not adopt a policy that turns these people loose on our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be withdrawn, as I understand that there is a point of order against it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the LaTourette amendment to ensure that we keep Amtrak up and running.

With hundreds of workers and thousands of riders, Connecticut relies every day on a healthy and efficient passenger rail service to sustain our way of life.

Were Amtrak to cease operations the ripple effect on my district would be near catastrophic. Hundreds of workers and their families would be without a source of income, thousands of riders would be forced to use an already-clogged 1-95 or equally congested local roads and millions of commuters and business in my district and throughout the state would be inconvenienced and perhaps worse.

Passenger rail in my district and throughout the heavily-populated Northeast Corridor simply cannot survive without Federal support.

While an improvement from the administration's allocation, the $550 million provided to Amtrak in this funding bill must be increased to sustain our passenger rail system.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the LaTourette amendment and to continue our Nation's commitment to a viable passenger rail system.

Offered By: Mr. Simmons

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Simmons

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I was regrettably delayed in my return to Washington, DC from an official visit to Norfolk Naval Station, Virginia and was unable to be on the House floor for rollcall votes 308 to 314. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 308, an amendment offered by Representative Price (GA); ``yea'' on rollcall 309, an amendment offered by Representative Miller (CA); ``nay'' on rollcall 310, an amendment offered by Representative Brown (OH); ``yea'' on rollcall 311, an amendment offered by Representative Filner; ``nay'' on rollcall 312, an amendment offered by Representative King (IA); ``nay'' on rollcall 313, an amendment offered by Representative Hefley; and, ``nay'' on rollcall 314, an amendment offered by Representative Hinchey.