Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to save Amtrak, and that is what this bill is about: $550 million within the bill shuts down Amtrak entirely. It is not a scare tactic. It is not an exaggeration. It is a matter of hard financial truth. Amtrak would have nothing left basically to run its trains when it pays out its debt and its interest on its debt and its mandatory labor severance pay outs. And without Amtrak, for example, in the northeast corridor, 80,000 daily commuters in New Jersey and thousands more throughout other States would be stranded because many

transit systems in those States, your States, my colleagues, depend upon Amtrak to run their trains for their commuters and their citizens. This is about small and mid-sized businesses having intercity rail service to sell their goods and services, to send their sales forces. This is about putting the country and linking it together, the United States of America. And after September 11, my God, if we do not understand that this is about national security, we are waiting for the next disaster like in Madrid. Vote for Amtrak.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette- Oberstar-Menendez amendment to save Amtrak. We've heard the facts about what this appropriations bill would do. We know that 550 million dollars will shut down Amtrak entirely. This is not a scare tactic. This is not an exaggeration. This is a matter of hard financial truth. With the interest it pays on its debt and the mandatory labor severance payouts for discontinued routes, Amtrak would have nothing left-- nothing--to run trains. And without Amtrak maintaining the Northeast Corridor, 80,000 commuters in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast would be stranded, because many transit systems depend on Amtrak in order to run their own trains.

As I said, we've already heard these facts. But I want to focus on the fundamental problem: a combination of unrealistic expectations and insufficient support that Amtrak has struggled with since its creation. I hear these complaints all the time: We keep pouring money into Amtrak, and it keeps getting worse. So we give Amtrak barely enough to get by. And then Amtrak gets worse. It's a vicious cycle, and it does nothing to improve passenger rail in this country. We cannot have an Amtrak on a starvation diet. Do you want to see an efficient, effective intercity rail system? Give it the money that it ultimately deserves.

There are some other facts about Amtrak that people tend to forget. First, we spend more money on highways in this bill alone than we have on Amtrak in its entire history. Second, Amtrak was created when the railroads begged the government to take the passengers off their hands. The freight railroads didn't want the burden of these unprofitable lines, so expecting Amtrak to be profitable on these same lines with bare-bones funding levels is totally unrealistic.

In addition, no mode of transportation pays for itself. Not aviation, not mass transit, and not highways. We subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives. And that's what transportation is about. It's not just getting from one place to another. It's about creating jobs, revitalizing neighborhoods, stimulating commerce, redeveloping underutilized land, and making us more secure. Amtrak is part of all of that. It is a crucial link for businesses up and down the Northeast Corridor. It provides mobility options for rural communities that don't have airports or inter-city bus service. And as we saw on September 11th, it is a crucial element of our transportation system when the airlines are grounded.

Mr. Chairman, people ride trains in this country when you give them good service. What we've seen in California in the past few years is that when you run more trains, more often, and you run them on time, people flock to the trains. We should be arguing seriously about how to improve Amtrak. We should be making the commitment and the investment that we're willing to make for transit, highways, and aviation. We should be here talking about how to build a world-class intercity rail system, instead of trying to scrape together enough money so Amtrak can survive another year.

If you want to have a discussion about how to reform Amtrak, you have to have an Amtrak. This appropriations bill would kill it. Our amendment would save it. But it is still just enough to scrape by. Amtrak will continue to defer maintenance, and service will suffer. So we'll be back here again next year fighting the same fight. But we can do better than that. We can give Americans the intercity rail system they deserve. This amendment keeps Amtrak on life-support, but we need to start talking about rehabilitation and regrowth. I look forward to that discussion and urge my colleagues to support the LaTourette- Oberstar-Menendez amendment and keep Amtrak alive.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brown- Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment to save the 18 Amtrak routes that would be cut in this bill represented with these red lines across the country.

This is a mode of transportation for millions of Americans who have chosen it as their form to get connected to other parts of this country.

Now, if the language in the bill stands, notwithstanding that the previous amendment added money to Amtrak's overall budget, but if we allow the rest of the language in the bill to stand, Amtrak would be eviscerated as a national rail passenger service, as a national rail passenger service from coast to coast, one country, the United States of America, the United States of America.

The map shows it all very clearly. All long-distance routes would be gone. The 23 States in yellow would lose Amtrak service. However, nearly every State would be affected by the loss of some of these routes, including my home State of New Jersey. And even if Amtrak were still able to run its short-distance trains, States with Amtrak service would still suffer.

And there are a lot of places, we keep hearing about these air traffic ticket fares. Well, they are very selective and they also do not speak to the volume that there are a lot of places in the country where you cannot get to that location through a direct flight or even sometimes through a connector flight. Amtrak brings the Nation together. And you cannot starve a horse and ask it to run like a thoroughbred. That is exactly what has happened to Amtrak time and time again.

Those who starve it then come here and say how inefficient it is, but it cannot function if it does not get the right resources in the first place.

Now, these long-distance routes are not just a lifeline for people in rural towns out west, although certainly Fargo, North Dakota; Minot, North Dakota; Cut Bank, Montana; Elko, Nevada; Trinidad, Colorado; Needles, California; Yazoo City, Mississippi; Newton, Kansas, and many more are what you are seeking to eliminate by eliminating these routes.

Those people in America, small-town America, rural America, they deserve the opportunity to be connected to the

rest of the country as well, because these long-distance routes are not just the lifeline for people in the rural town out west who depend on trains like the Empire Builder and the Southwest Chief to be able get around the country.

This is about thousands of people, for example, in New Jersey who take the train to Atlanta or Florida each year. It is about tens of thousands of people who take the train from New York to Chicago. It is about maintaining the critical redundancy of our intercity transportation system, the importance of which we saw the days after September 11 when our airplanes were grounded, and it was Amtrak that was still connecting the Nation together.

Eliminating the long-distance routes will not solve Amtrak's financial problems. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimated that getting rid of all of these routes would only save Amtrak about $300 million, but because of mandatory labor severance payouts, it might be several years before Amtrak actually saves a single dime. In the meantime, the severance payouts would strain Amtrak's finances, starve good areas like the northeast corridor of essential maintenance money.

This is about ultimately degrading a national passenger system, a system that is critical after September 11.

The amendment is about our fundamental commitment to a national rail passenger network, a commitment that is an essential lifeline for people throughout the country, enhances our national security, eases congestion on our highways and our airports, and gives small and mid- size businesses the chance to sell their products and services at different points throughout the country.

Vote for the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment. Make sure we stay together as one country.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment. And I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Knollenberg) attempt to protect Section 8 in the bill. I respect his support for the program, but we are here about a debate in large respect about our values. That is what the budget process is. That is what the appropriations process is.

We speak to the different issues that we care about in this country and our personal values, and the total values of both our parties as well as our country are reflected in this national document that we call the budget and the appropriations process that fulfills that budget.

Now, when we think about values, what more values are there than of having a home, a place to call home, a place to bring your family, a place to bring your newborn child, a place where in fact that child is nurtured, a place where that child is going to study, a place where there will be celebrations, a place where difficult moments will be met together by family, a place that is secure and safe and warm and comforting and nurturing. That is a value when we talk about families because a family that does not have a home finds it very difficult to sustain itself as a family.

So this amendment strikes at the very heart of what we want to see, the ability of families to sustain themselves together in a nurturing environment that we call home. For too many people in this country, there is simply not a place for them to call home, and many times families are not even together because they are living with other family members. They are separated and apart.

So, ultimately, this is about creating an opportunity for more families to call someplace home, and I wish we were discussing an amendment that would be providing far more than $100 million for Section 8, but still, this move, this is a critical one towards fulfilling the gap that the bill leaves open. At a minimum, we should be able to meet the President's request which recognizes the shortfalls in the program last year.

Section 8 is our Nation's most successful Federal low-income housing program, but it has been the victim of continual underfunding, sweeping structural changes and last-minute policy changes.

I have seen that firsthand in my district the havoc that it wreaks on the lives of people who are in it, and the millions who are waiting throughout the country and certainly thousands that are waiting in my own district as they wait on the list, and they are told after waiting so long, oh, we are still further underfunded; we are not going to get to that list. Without warning or rationale, HUD has changed the formulas, capped funding, established policies retroactively, making it harder and harder for housing authorities to keep up.

Last year's appropriation left a shortfall of 80,000 vouchers. What will it be this year, 100,000? The ongoing shortfall comes at a time when the administration has also put forward a proposal that dramatically threatens the future of Section 8, and finally, at a time when the cost of living is rising, when rented housing prices are increasingly out of reach, particularly in high cost areas like New Jersey, the answer to these obstacles should not be weakening the very program that provides assistance to those who depend on it most. If home is where the heart is, let this Congress not be heartless and not make more people homeless at the end of the day.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sad day when I am rising in support of an amendment that would provide only $60 million for this critical program.

But this is the situation in which we find ourselves with this bill, when priorities of the Republic budget are focused elsewhere and we are sent a budget that puts the future of our Nation's housing programs in jeopardy.

While I am relieved to see the Committee has rejected the extremely unsound proposal to rescind the funding we appropriated for this current Fiscal Year, I find it hard to comprehend that this bill still provides no funding for Hope VI.

Just to provide some perspective, we should realize that HOPE VI funding for the last two fiscal years combined is only roughly half of the funding level provided in 2003.

I think part of the problem my colleagues have is trying to quantify the success of this program.

Mr. Chairman, I understand it is very hard to see the accomplishments of this program on paper.

There are not clear numbers of statistics that make it easy to put it in a bureaucratic category that proves it is ``demonstrating results.''

But Mr. Chairman, I can tell you personally of the success this program has brought, not only to communities in my district, but across the country.

HOPE VI has successfully transformed some of the nation's most dilapidated public housing into revitalized mixed income communities, providing a second chance for neighborhoods that often had little or no hope of improvement.

I have seen the transformation HOPE VI funds have brought to communities in my district and around New Jersey.

I have stood at communities that have been completely rebuilt, where renovated townhouses replace crumbling buildings, where senior centers and new playgrounds invite the community in, instead of shut it out.

Because cycles of poverty and crime are likely to be concentrated at the most distressed and run-down public housing structures, there is often little chance for changing

the surrounding community without providing a clean slate for the site.

HOPE VI proves neighborhoods with that chance.

What I think many have forgotten today is that this program was born out of strong bipartisan support.

HOPE VI began in 1992 with the express goal of demolishing and revitalizing 86,000 units of distressed housing.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard arguments that there is no longer a need for the HOPE VI program.

Are we really saying there are no more crumbling housing structures that are in need of repair?

Are we telling our communities struggling to find some hope of a better future that their neighborhood has no chance of revitalization?

That their children will not get a safe playground, that their family will never have a home they are proud to live in because the goals of HOPE VI have been accomplished?

Mr. Chairman, while we may have surpassed the original goal of transforming those 86,000 units, the program has not lost its need or effectiveness.

The fact remains that there is an ongoing need for fundamental revitalization in communities across the country that HOPE VI makes possible and which is currently unmatched by any other program.

HUD itself has noted the effectiveness of HOPE VI in affecting positive change beyond the housing structures and well into the community.

Perhaps most importantly, however, HOPE VI funds have become a critical source for localities to leverage private funds.

HOPE VI is thus not only a mechanism to bring about change, but it is a mechanism for drawing in critical investment.

Without HOPE VI as the incentive, communities will lose out on sources that are essential to ensuring true revitalization.

This program is a promise to people that if they live in a building that is unsafe, dilapidated, and beyond disrepair, we will not abandon them.

And it is a promise to our communities that our commitment continues far beyond the public housing structures we provided years ago--that we will be there to help all of communities be neighborhoods where we would be proud to raise our families.

Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to abandon our communities.

This program has provided many families and communities throughout the country hope of a better quality of life and we should not deprive additional communities of that chance.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis, which would restore funding to the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere program, more commonly referred to as HOPE VI.

The HOPE VI program is one of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's most successful programs, and it is a shame that it is one of the many valuable and worthwhile Federal programs that the Bush administration has targeted for elimination.

HOPE VI allows public housing authorities to revitalize neighborhoods affected by blighted public housing districts, and transform them into showcases of urban renewal and redevelopment.

For over 15 years, first as Mayor of the City of Alexandria and now as a Member of Congress, I have been involved in the revitalization of the former Samuel Madden public housing project, in the area known as the ``berg.''

While Samuel Madden was once a well-intentioned effort to provide affordable housing for those in need, it had become mired in controversy and the focal point of criticisms and problems synonymous with troubled public housing programs throughout the nation.

In 1999, the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority received $6.7 million dollars in HOPE VI grant funds to redevelop the 100-unit Samuel Madden public housing site.

This new project, Chatham Square, is a 152-residential unit development, 52 of which will be affordable rental homes operated as public housing units, and 100 of which will be market-rate townhouses for sale to the public.

This former public housing site has now become an inclusive community that is a mix of market-rate and subsidized public housing and continues to serve the needs of moderate and low-income residents.

Last year, I was proud to stand with representatives from the Alexandria Redevelopment Housing Authority and other City of Alexandria leaders as we attended the celebration and ribbon-cutting ceremony of this new development. The cornerstone of the event was the presentation of house keys to the first residents to move into the development: one who bought a market-rate townhouse and one who receives assistance with housing needs.

The Chatham Square project serves as a model for what public housing should become and identifies a successful mechanism through which this transformation can occur.

I have already shared with you a successful HOPE VI program from my congressional district, and there are thousands more all across the nation.

While the Bush administration may be critical concerning the HOPE VI program, it does not deserve to be gutted in next year's budget.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, last year I joined the chairman and the ranking member here on the floor to send a clear and, I thought, bipartisan message that it is not in the national interest, nor in the national security interest, of the United States to slash our development funding to our neighbors in our own front yard here in the Western Hemisphere.

Yet, I find myself here once again to send the same exact message. To be frank, it makes me question whether the administration was listening to what Congress said last year.

As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and as an American, I was outraged when the President, in his proposed fiscal year 2006 budget, slashed core development funding to Latin America by over 12 percent.

In his fiscal year 2005 budget, Latin America was the only region in the world, the only region in the world, to be cut in both total economic and development aid, and total narcotic and military aid. In his fiscal year 2006 budget, the President once again broke his pledge to the people of the Western Hemisphere. So much for looking southward, not as an afterthought, in U.S. foreign policy, an integral part of a forward-looking vision we were promised, this certainly is not it. So much for being an amigo, a friend of Latin America.

And, if we look below the broad 12 percent cuts, we find even more disturbing trends. Under the administration's proposed budget, basic education funding would be cut by over 20 percent and adult literacy funding would be cut by 28 percent, as compared to the fiscal year 2004 budget. In the midst of the debate on CAFTA, the President cuts development assistance funding to El Salvador by over 30 percent, and child survival and health funding to the Dominican Republic by over 18 percent. This will only exacerbate the gap between those who have and have not.

At a time when Latin American presidents are being toppled left and right by crowds frustrated with the failure of government to provide them with adequate education, housing, and health care; at a time when anti-Americanism is on the rise throughout the hemisphere; at a time when our hemisphere is growing smaller, when infectious diseases move throughout the hemisphere, when crime penetrates borders, when terrorists may use failed States as safe havens, these cuts are the wrong policy for the United States of America.

Let me be clear: a stable, safe, and prosperous neighborhood is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States. It is in the national interest of the United States to increase demand for U.S. goods in a region of 500 million people by enhancing economic development. It is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to create greater economic growth in Latin America so that people will not seek to leave their homes out of despair. It is in the national interest and national security interest of the United States to increase stability in our hemisphere, because chaos and insecurity creates unwanted opportunity for terrorists and criminals throughout the region. That is the reality.

So I want to take this opportunity, as I express these frustrations and these criticisms, at the same time to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ranking Member Lowey) for their bipartisan effort on this issue, particularly for including language which restores funding specifically to Central America directly in the bill text, since similar report language in our statements on the floor have been ignored in the past. I also hope our friends in the administration understand that the report language disagrees with the deep cuts to development assistance for the entire hemisphere.

I believe that we should restore all development funding that was cut to the hemisphere, not just to Central America. It has been static for so many years, and then we cut it in addition to that. It is woefully inadequate for the national interest and security interest of the United States.

But I do not believe that restoring funding to fiscal year 2005 levels is enough. In fact, that would be an overall decrease, even then, since there is no increase that accounts for inflation.

So I hope that we can move in a different direction. I know that Hispanic Americans in this country are increasingly paying attention to this issue. We are going to hear a lot of debate

about Central America and the Central America Free Trade Agreement at the same time we are eviscerating the very programs that can help create stability and opportunity within the hemisphere.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will extend war-risk insurance coverage for our Nation's airlines for 3 years, through August 31, 2008.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, commercial insurance providers invoked their 7-day cancellation clauses on war-risk insurance policies held by U.S. airlines. With the absence of a commercial war-risk insurance market, the Federal Government was forced to step in. Less than 2 weeks after the attacks, Congress authorized the Federal Aviation Administration to begin offering war-risk insurance to airlines, and that authority has been extended a number of times, but is now set to expire on August 31 of this year.

We need to extend the FAA's ability to issue war-risk insurance policies for the financial sake of the U.S. airline industry, which lost approximately $9 billion in 2004. This program is not a bailout. First of all, it is actually a revenue raiser for the Federal Government. Second, it is considerably more expensive than the war-risk insurance policies held by the airlines prior to September 11th. Four years ago, the airline industry paid a total of approximately $20 million in premiums per year. Last year, they paid over $140 million. However, this is much more reasonable than the over $600 million the Air Transport Association estimates they would have to pay on the open market. This massive jump in premiums could mean the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for many of our struggling airlines. In addition, the commercial insurance policies that exist still contain the 7-day cancellation clause that would allow the insurers to cancel policies in the face of an enhanced threat.

Should the airlines be unable to obtain war-risk insurance policies, they would be forced to stop operating. This would be a crippling blow to not only the aviation industry itself, which employs over 15,000 people in New Jersey alone, but also to the entire United States economy.

Airlines are still a prime target for terrorist attack, which makes war-risk insurance both an absolute necessity and something that can not be offered by the commercial market at a reasonable price. This bill would help our struggling airline industry without costing the Federal Government one cent, and I urge my colleagues to support this small but crucial piece of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe the budget we pass is reflective of the values we hold as a country and the vision we have for our Nation. And the budget resolution and appropriations bills, such as the ones we are debating here, are moral documents and we should treat them as such.

The bill before us is in clear disregard of the values that makes this country great. This is a bill that will do a disservice to our Nation and will only weaken its future. At a time when we can find the money to fund tax cuts of $140,000 for the lucky few who make over a million dollars a year, at a price tag of $10.7 billion next year alone, it is inexcusable and I find it immoral, that the first thing that goes is our investment in our children's future.

Mr. Chairman, educators in schools across the country have been working hard to implement the changes No Child Left Behind asked of them to achieve: to raise proficiency, to demonstrate results. And they have been working to do this despite a persistent underfunding of the law totaling nearly $30 billion in the 4 years since we passed No Child Left Behind. This bill would increase that deficit to $40 billion.

Now we are asking more of our schools than ever before. And yes, they can meet higher standards and they can increase performance, but we must provide them with the resources that we promised in this legislation.

Now, I served on a school board, Mr. Chairman. I know the struggle of impossible budgets and having to choose between new textbooks, better technology, music classes and meeting the capital challenges of a school district. No Child Left Behind promised a strong Federal partnership for our schools and educators, but this works only if we act as true partners. Yet this bill actually cuts funding for No Child Left Behind by more than $800 million from last year and by more than a billion dollars less than even the President's request.

In addition to slashing a number of the President's requests, this bill provides only half of his proposed increase for Pell grants, something the President himself has touted as a top priority.

Now, instead, this bill flat-funds, or cuts program after program. I believe it is a slap in the face to our young people that as we ask them to reach new heights and as they find themselves reaching higher costs in terms of college tuition, the only increase to financial aid in this bill, the only increase is a mere $50 to the maximum Pell grant. College tuition for a public university in my State has risen more than $1,500 over 4 years. In that time, the actual average Pell award increased a meager $432.

Mr. Chairman, I know the value of a Pell grant. I benefited from one. As the first in my family to attend college, receiving that aid gave me critical financial support, but also a boost of confidence that I could succeed. There are now nearly 5 million students who benefit from Pell grants, approximately 100,000 in my State alone. But not for long. Under a formula change by this administration, at least 90,000 students would lose their award and another 1.3 million would see reductions in their awards this year.

So in the end, what is the real value of a $50 increase? Not much, Mr. Chairman. Our young people deserve a real effort to help them finance their dreams of college. But that is not part of the vision Republicans have for our country. And we see clearly in this bill what their vision is not.

It is not a vision that includes the opportunity for all children regardless of background or income to attend college, or the chance for every child to have the best teachers, the best education, and the best chance to succeed regardless of the happenstance of where they were born.

Instead, what we get is the realization of the priorities of the President and this Republican Congress.

Tax cuts in the name of our children's future are not my priorities, Mr. Chairman. Our children deserve better. Our country deserves better. This bill does not represent our values. It does not represent the values of families in this country, and it certainly does not represent the values of the people I serve in New Jersey.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. At the end of the day, it is a poor excuse for providing the caliber of education that the future of the country deserves.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Nadler and Ms. Schwartz to introduce the True Reinvestment for Amtrak Infrastructure in the 21st Century Act, otherwise known as TRAIN-21, which would provide the true federal commitment to Amtrak that has been missing for too long.

Amtrak is currently under attack by people who don't recognize the tremendous benefits generated by intercity rail in this country. Not the billions of dollars generated in commerce, nor the thousands of businesses along the Northeast Corridor whose employees are dependent on Amtrak, nor the national security value of having an additional mode of transportation, nor the benefits to our environment by taking cars off the road. However, 25 million people did recognize those benefits and rode Amtrak in 2004, which was the 2nd straight year of record ridership.

Amtrak is crucial for more than just the businessmen who ride its trains along the Northeast Corridor. It is just as crucial for commuters who unknowingly are dependent on Amtrak's survival. Were Amtrak to go bankrupt, nearly 100,000 New Jersey commuters would be stranded, because over three-quarters of New Jersey Transit trains ride on track owned and maintained by Amtrak. And Amtrak is just as crucial for the people in rural Montana or Colorado, who depend on the train as their link to the national transportation system.

There is no question that Amtrak has its share of problems. But there are two ways to

address Amtrak's problems. The first is what we've been doing: blame Amtrak, blame labor, and keep cutting until the system becomes profitable. This method has been a failure. Keeping Amtrak on a starvation budget means maintenance can't be performed, the system can't be improved, and service deteriorates. This path leads to certain bankruptcy and the elimination of intercity passenger rail service in this country.

The people who prefer this method of cutting funding and raising expectations seem to forget a few simple truths: First, the reason Amtrak was created in the first place was because the railroads were hemorrhaging money on passenger service and begged the government to take it off their hands. Second, public transportation is not profitable. No public transit system in the country covers its operating expenses with passenger fares, and virtually no intercity passenger rail systems in the world turn a profit, either. The trains that we admire in Europe are supported yearly by large government subsidies. Third, no form of transportation pays for itself, including highways. But we subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives. And that's what transportation is about. It's not just getting from one place to another. It's about creating jobs, revitalizing neighborhoods, stimulating commerce, redeveloping underutilized land, and making us more secure.

That's why I'm introducing this legislation today that will put us on the other path towards solving Amtrak's problems: Actually giving it the funding it needs to be successful. That means addressing the huge backlog of deferred maintenance on the Northeast Corridor, and establishing new funding mechanisms to improve rail service throughout the country. This idea has been tried recently, with tremendous success. In California, for example, a serious investment into train service by the State since 1998 has resulted in a near tripling of ridership and a doubling of revenues. They accomplished this with a simple formula: run more trains, run them faster, and run them on time.

This legislation would take that model and build on it. It establishes a Federal/State matching program for passenger rail, similar to what we do for highways and transit, and it provides a stable funding source that's not dependent on annual appropriations. It does this by establishing an independent corporation, the Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation, which will sell bonds and invest the proceeds in a way to provide for a steady stream of income. The Corporation will select rail projects approved for funding by the Secretary of Transportation, and provide 80 percent of the necessary money, with the State, or consortium of States, providing the other 20 percent. And the money will be distributed in the form of contract authority good for 6 years, so States will be able to make firm long- term plans.

The Corporation will be authorized to distribute $500 million in contract authority each year, with the bulk of that going to four corridors that have been identified by Amtrak as being ``ready to go'' for investment: A Southeast Corridor from Washington to Jacksonville; a Midwest Corridor radiating outwards from Chicago to Minneapolis, Detroit, and St. Louis; a Pacific Northwest Corridor from Eugene to Vancouver; and a California Corridor running along the Pacific coast and through the central valley. Contract authority will also be distributed to states with other federally-designated high-speed corridors, states with long-distance Amtrak trains only, and states not served by Amtrak at all.

The goals of this program are simple: run more trains, faster, and on-time. This does not require using exotic technologies, and it does not require massive new investments. This is just a simple shift of philosophy. Instead of trying to pare Amtrak down until it becomes profitable, which would have the inevitable result of leaving us with no trains at all, we will expand it and improve it so that people begin to ride Amtrak in ever increasing numbers.

In addition, the bill reauthorizes Amtrak at a level of $2 billion per year, the same level recently passed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which will go a long way towards addressing the $5 billion in backlogged maintenance on the Northeast Corridor.

Just as important is what this bill does not do. It does not put the burden of paying for trains onto the already over-burdened States. It does not cannibalize Amtrak into different companies. It does not mandate the elimination of long-distance routes. And it does not harm the essential labor protections that cover rail workers.

I have heard some people say that rail is the past. An obsolete mode of transportation for a bygone time. I strongly disagree. In fact, I believe that rail could be the mode of the future. With rising gas prices and overcrowded highways and airports, we need alternative ways to get around. This legislation firmly establishes a true national commitment to intercity rail, and put Amtrak on a path towards lasting success.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague and friend from New Jersey, particularly as we coshare the great city of Newark in representation in the Congress of the United States and particularly the privilege I have had representing the people of the North and East Ward at Newark North Ward where Peter Rodino lived most of his life, throughout his life, and for organizing this special opportunity. I want to thank the distinguished whip for yielding in the process here because I have an event to go to.

Particularly, I want to join in paying honor to a great American and a respected public servant, the late Congressman from New Jersey, Peter Rodino. Though I never had the pleasure of serving with Congressman Rodino in the House, I have tremendous admiration for his work. I have heard from so many of his colleagues who did have the opportunity and the privilege of serving with him as well as from my colleague Donald Payne of his tremendous respect in the House; and certainly from his work, one would understand that.

I join today in mourning the loss of a man of wisdom and integrity who spent his long career fighting tough battles to improve the quality of life for the people of his district and the Nation. Like many of his generation, Congressman Rodino's loyal service to his country began in the trenches of World War II, where he fought valiantly and emerged as a decorated war veteran.

During his 40-year tenure in the House of Representatives, he served with distinction and established himself as a champion in the fight for social justice and equality for all Americans. Though some may not have viewed him as the most outspoken Member of Congress, Congressman Rodino worked diligently to bring about real social change and let his actions speak instead. He chose his battles wisely and played a critical role in developing historic pieces of legislation in the areas of civil rights, immigration, and fair housing. His vision is imprinted in many legacies that have shaped the future of our country, including the monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which he played a vital role pushing it forward and seeing it become law.

In this way and many more, Congressman Rodino served our country far beyond the borders of his constituency. His sense of duty to serve our Nation saw no barriers and no obstacle too great. Just as remarkable as his perseverance to improve civil rights was his fairness during a time of constitutional crisis.

Congressman Rodino, as we just heard from our colleague, stepped into the role as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during a precarious moment in our Nation's history. Today in a political atmosphere sharply divided along party lines, we look with even greater admiration at Congressman Rodino, a statesman who was able to use his political acumen to work in a bipartisan fashion during the turbulent era of the Watergate investigation. His calm, nonpartisan leadership approach earned him the respect of people from all political persuasions, and he proved himself to be a steady hand in a sea of storms.

History will record that he defended and preserved the Constitution, some may say an ordinary man who performed an extraordinary service for the Nation. His life experiences and extensive career in this Chamber helped him to become one of its great voices of reason.

I had the benefit of speaking with Congressman Rodino during the Clinton impeachment trial. After hearing his wise counsel, I was convinced based on that conversation and all of the facts, of course, that there were no grounds for impeachment. I, like many, trusted his insight, and the House was fortunate to have such a thoughtful, perceptive Member.

But beyond the longevity of his public service, I was most impressed by his sense of integrity and his commitment to upholding the principles of the Constitution. He was known for carrying around a copy of the document he so admired in his pocket. Not only did he know the principles it embodied inside and out; he lived them. Few of us have the opportunity to witness almost a century of history, but we should all aspire to be so influential in shaping that history. Peter Rodino was a man ahead of his time, who saw beyond the circumstances he came from and beyond the barriers that surrounded him. His vision for this country has made this Nation and the people it protects stronger, and it is a lasting vision we still benefit from today.

I, too, would like to offer my sincere condolences to Congressman Rodino's wife, Joy, his two children and extended family. May they find comfort and peace in the memory of this accomplished man who leaves behind a tremendous legacy of greatness.

Mr. Chairman, it is time that we make real reforms at the United Nations that address the real problems, but I believe that the Hyde bill simply sets the United Nations up to fail by creating a series of requirements that will be almost impossible to meet. One might even argue that this is the actual goal of some U.N. critics. The United Nations is governed by 191 countries, including Syria, Iran, and North Korea, who would have to approve the majority of these changes. This seems highly unlikely as structured by the bill. Right now this bill is medicine which may kill the patient rather than cure a specific disease.

The Hyde bill ties the hands of the Secretary of State with a mandatory 50 percent withholding, even if the U.N. improves significantly. That is like kicking a child out of school who has moved from an F to a B because they did not get an A. The bill also keeps the U.S. from supporting any new peacekeeping missions until far-reaching reforms have been implemented, even in cases like a Sudan and when innocent civilians are at risk. We do not know when and where U.N. peacekeepers will be needed next, but we do know that we cannot risk the lives of innocent people or risk American interests around the world. We simply cannot create legislation which hurts our own security interests and our national interest while we are at war.

This is a time, when our own human and financial resources are stretched thin, for the United States to get the world to act with us rather than destroy the institution which unites the world.

I am concerned that the bill condemns us to lose only American lives, shed only American blood and spend only American capital instead of having the world share this responsibility with us. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde bill and to vote for the Lantos- Shays substitute that does the reforms we want, but gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to do the peacekeeping and to achieve the reforms we all want to see.

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in strong support of the previous amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkeley). It is an important initiative, one that I have been working on in similar context for some time as a member of the Committee on International Relations.

It is certainly appropriate that we be voting on this amendment tonight, the day after Iran admits that it has once again lied to the international community, this time about its plutonium experiments, 5 years after they said that they had ceased continuing such experiments.

For nearly two decades, Iran has pursued a clandestine nuclear program, while claiming it had to keep this program hidden from the international community because of sanctions against it. Iran has repeatedly stated that it will never give up its right to enrich fuel for peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

What they have here is clearly a pattern of deception. They have forfeited their right to any peaceful nuclear technology when they deliberately hid the activities, facilities, and materials of their nuclear program from the entire world for nearly two decades.

Let us be clear. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas reserves. They simply do not need nuclear power for energy consumption. That is why I am very happy to support this amendment. We need to send a very clear message. It is clearly in the national security interest of the United States that Iran cannot move forward with impunity, and, certainly, that we do not, through the IAEA, give it operational capacity to do so; to be able to have the ability, for example, at the Bushehr Nuclear Facility, to be able to have operational capacity.

That is why that amendment is clearly so important. I look forward to the State Department authorization bill, where language has been included that we hope moves us closer, along with the Security Council, to coming to understand the grave nature of the challenge that we face in Iran and its nuclear energy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Brown, as well as Mr. Dingell, the Ranking Member on the Energy and Commerce Committee; Chairman Barton; Mr. Deal, the Chairman on the Health Subcommittee; and all of their staff. And I particularly want to thank my good friend and lead cosponsor, Deborah Pryce, and her staff who have been actively engaged in this effort and have been instrumental in getting this bill to the Floor today. And, of course, her own personal experiences and her family's struggle with cancer have made her such a powerful advocate in this regard. This is truly a bipartisan effort and a case study in how--if we choose to work together, across the aisle-- we can really make a difference.

And we cannot talk about patient navigators without thanking Drs. Harold Freeman, Elmer Huerta, and Gil Friedell, who have been pioneers in creating patient navigator programs that can be replicated across the country--which is exactly what we're doing today.

There is no question that we have a health care crisis in this country. Not only does the cost of our nation's health care system discourage people from getting the care they need, but the sheer complexity of the system can be so overwhelming that patients don't even know what their treatment options are.

The Patient Navigator bill addresses these issues, as well as other barriers that America's families--just like New Jersey's families--face in getting the health care they need and deserve. The bill encourages prevention and early detection in order to keep the costs of health care down, and provides a patient navigator to help families navigate the complex health care system so that they get the best treatment options available when a family member is diagnosed with cancer or another chronic disease.

It will ensure that all Americans, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, language, or geography, will have access to prevention screening and treatment, and that they will have an advocate at their side, helping them navigate through today's complicated health care system.

For example, a mother who has just been told that she could have breast cancer and needs to see a specialist would benefit from a patient navigator who would help her understand her diagnosis, make sure she follows through and sees the doctor, and identify health coverage options that might be available to help with the cost of her treatment. And, because that mother heard about the importance of getting regular check-ups, hopefully her cancer will be found at a much earlier stage, giving her a much better chance of survival and giving her family a better chance at a long, healthy life together.

The bill addresses what I believe are the root causes of health disparities in minority and underserved communities: that's lack of access to health care, particularly prevention and early detection. The bottom line is: the only way to stay healthy is to see a doctor when you are healthy. Unfortunately, patients in underserved communities are less likely to receive early screening and detection, so their disease is found at a much later stage and they have less chance of survival. That's why we're here today--to give those people the chance they deserve for a long, healthy life.

The Patient Navigator bill does this by replicating the successful models developed by Drs. Freeman, Huerta, and Friedell in a national demonstration project. It focuses on outreach and prevention, through Community Health Centers, Rural Health Clinics, Indian Health Clinics, and cancer clinics. And it does so by providing patient navigator services and outreach in health disparity communities to encourage people to get screened early so that they can receive the care they need. Patient navigators educate and empower patients, serving as their advocates in navigating the health care system.

In addition to having visited both Dr. Freeman's program in Harlem and Dr. Huerta's program here in Washington, my constituents in New Jersey and I have seen first-hand the difference patient navigators can make in a community. I was able to secure funding for a one-year demonstration project at a Community Health Center in Jersey City, New Jersey. That program has screened more than 1,400 people and has a caseload of about 300 patients who were identified through these screenings with abnormal findings and are currently benefiting from the help of the patient navigator in finding follow-up care and treatment.

And before I close I want to share one of the most compelling stories I've heard and one of the reasons I've worked so hard to make this program a reality for more Americans. It's the story about Hazel Hailey, one of the patient navigators in New Jersey, and her daughter, Robin Waiters. Robin, who was only 36 years old, suffered severe stomach pains for 2 years and refused to see a doctor, despite her mother's pleas for her to seek medical care. Finally, she had no choice but to go see a doctor. Tragically, 3 months later, Robin died from colorectal cancer. Her mother, Hazel, tells about her daughter's last request--she made her mom promise to tell all her friends, family and everyone she could ``that if your body is trying to tell you something, listen to it. You could possibly save your life.'' Hazel quotes her daughter as saying, ``I am dying because I chose not to get help. Fear set in and I lost out on life.'' Hazel is fulfilling her promise to her daughter as a patient navigator, working every day to ensure that what happened to her daughter doesn't happen to other families. And that's why we're here today, to ensure that the Hazels across the country have the tools they need to educate and empower people about the importance of early detection and screening, and to help them navigate the complexities of the health care system so that they get the treatment and follow-up care they need.

Again, I want to thank my colleague Deborah Pryce for all of her work on this effort, as well as all of those who have worked behind the scenes to make this concept a reality. We have strong bipartisan support for this bill in both the House and Senate, and I am more optimistic than ever before that we can make this program a reality and help families struggling to afford their health care and to understand the complex system in order to get the care they need. There's simply too much at stake if we don't act.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that official business forced me to miss rollcall votes 223-227 on May 26, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall vote No. 223, On Ordering the Previous Question providing for consideration of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and VA Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 224, On Agreeing to the Melancon Amendment to H.R. 2528, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 225, On Agreeing to the Blumenauer Amendment to H.R. 2528, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 226, passage of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and VA Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006, I would have voted ``aye.'' .

On rollcall vote No. 227, On Agreeing to the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 15 to 20 years, there has been a major and fundamental change in the way that our Reserve component has been used. Historically, National Guardsmen and Reservists were primarily viewed as a force expansion that could be used to supplement our active duty troops at times of a major war or conflict. But today these forces not only support our active forces, they also replace them in operations around the world.

Since September 11, a large number of our Reserve component has been called to active duty, and the pace of Reserve perstempo is very high and expected to remain that way for the foreseeable future. In fact, as of May 20, we had over 162,000 National Guard members and Reservists on active duty both here at home and around the world.

Unfortunately, there have been a variety of reports detailing recruiting and retention problems that our Armed Forces have experienced over the last year. Clearly, if our Nation continues to rely more and more on National Guard members and Reservists without providing them and their families the support they need at home, we risk establishing a pattern of failure when it comes to meeting the recruitment and retention targets.

That is why I am very happy that we have included this amendment as part of the en bloc, and I appreciate the chairman's and the ranking member's help in doing so.

In September of 2003, the GAO found that the DOD lacked sufficient information and data to address financial and health care issues affecting Reservists and their families. Fortunately, there is new information that could be used to determine the effect on readiness, recruiting, retention and, yes, on these families.

Both a CBO study and a DOD survey, which were recently completed, have some interesting facts: 56 percent of National Guard members and Reservists are married; 55 percent of married Guard members and Reservists report a loss of income over their civilian jobs; 15 percent of those Guard members and Reservists report a pay decrease of $30,000 a year; and 71 percent of them cite family burdens as a reason to leave the military.

For all of those reasons, I am happy to see that our amendment, which will have a GAO report to provide recommendations to the Congress on how these programs can be improved to treat more fairly our Guardsmen, our Reservists, and their families, will be a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor St. Adalbert Roman Catholic Church, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. To begin the year-long celebration, the parish will hold its opening ceremony event on May 21, 2005, in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Founded in 1905, St. Adalbert was developed from the hopes and dreams of Polish immigrants in the Elizabeth area. Longing for a place of worship that would serve the needs of Polish-speaking Americans, the original members each contributed their own money to purchase land and construct the church. As it prepares for its centennial celebration, we look back and honor the innumerable contributions that St. Adalbert has made to the Elizabeth community. Though the building was constructed in just one year, this parish has spent the last century providing strong spiritual support for its members.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring St. Adalbert Roman Catholic Church for 100 years of religious commitment and excellence in serving the people of Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jose C. Cayon Dieguez, an accomplished Cuban-American journalist who has dedicated his career to reporting on and promoting issues important to the Hispanic community. Mr. Cayon Dieguez is the founder of El Tiempo de Nuevo York, New Jersey and Miami.

Launched in 1963, this weekly newspaper offers stories and insight into the lives of Hispanics throughout the United States. Mr. Cayon Dieguez has served as the director and guiding force behind this New York-based publication for the past 33 years. During that time, he has proven himself to be an outstanding leader and a strong voice within the Hispanic community. As the manager and contributing editor of the paper, Mr. Cayon Dieguez has become a spokesman for the causes important to community organizations such as the Puerto Rican Parade Committee, the Puerto Rican Folklore Festival, the Columbian Civic Center, and the Dominican Cultural Civic Center, among others. In addition to his work with El Tiempo de Nuevo York, New Jersey and Miami, he was also the editor for the first Hispanic Guide to New Jersey and New York.

Mr. Cayon Dieguez is an active member of the community, who volunteers his time and takes on leadership roles in a multitude of organizations. In the past he has served as treasurer of the National Federation of Hispanic Owned Newspapers, vice-president of the Hispanic Media Council, director of art and columnist for the Diario Hispanoamericano,

and columnist for the weekly paper Zig Zag. He has also served on the board of directors for the National Association of Cuban Journalists.

For his exemplary work, Mr. Cayon Dieguez has received numerous awards and accolades, including being named one of the 100 most outstanding Hispanic journalists by Hispanic Media 100.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jose C. Cayon Dieguez for his impressive career accomplishments and his dedication to serving the Hispanic community. I applaud him for the positive impact he has made through his work as a journalist, and I am confident that he will continue to enrich the lives of those who read his publication in the years to come.

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

First of all, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for offering this, since I was at an event with our colleagues in the Senate and with the Democratic Caucus, so I appreciate him offering this on my behalf. It is my intention, based on a conversation with the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), and I believe the ranking member as well, to withdraw the amendment, with an understanding, and I will get to that in a moment.

My effort here is to basically take, not that I have said this, but that the FBI and law enforcement and a congressional study has said that the most dangerous two miles in America when it comes to terrorism, according to the FBI and others, which is that area between Port Elizabeth, the megaport of the East Coast, and Newark International Airport, and since we have a critical challenge with this dangerous two miles that I think would replicate many other areas of the country that have chemical facilities next to transportation infrastructure, next to airports, next to seaports, and a whole host of other critical infrastructure, that what can the Department of Homeland Security do to look at this most dangerous two miles and tell us what has been done, what needs to be done, what should be done so that we can achieve the success that we want in protecting not just a part of my congressional district or of the people of New Jersey, but as the New York Times recently wrote, the Nation's most enticing environment for terrorists, providing a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communicate networks, and highway systems.

Now, if you are one of the 12 million people who live in this 14-mile radius with more than 100 potential terrorist targets, you would understandably be concerned. But as the New York Times mentioned, this is more about more than the safety and security of my constituents; it is an attack of this area to cripple our Nation's economy.

Very simply, an attack within these two miles would be an attack felt around the world, since the largest seaport on the East Coast, one of the busiest airports in the country, Interstate 95, the main corridor along the Eastern Seaboard, are all located within this area.

For example, just by one example, in 2002, 15 percent of Nebraska's container exports were shipped through this port, and, like that, it is so true for so many points of the country. If you are wearing it, driving it, or eating it, it likely came through the megaport of the East Coast.

So while my amendment does not authorize any new funding or any additional resources, it does look in the context of limited environment, of limited resources, but unlimited risks. How do we become careful stewards not only of the taxpayers' money, but also of the security of our people?

Now, my understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) will be willing, by me withdrawing this amendment and by working with the ranking member, to secure that the Department of Homeland Security would provide such a report, and I would like to yield to him to see if my understanding is correct.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's offer, and I would hope, however, seeing that many reports that have been requested by the committee have not come forward, that in fact we would be vigorous in making sure that the report would actually be issued.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the attacks of September 11 made each of us realize that terrorism had entered a whole new realm, one in which our Nation's assets, infrastructure, and people could be attacked by those meaning us harm. The district I have the honor of representing contains a vast number of potential targets of terror, such as the largest seaport on the east coast, one of the busiest airports in the country, an area known as the ``chemical coastway,'' four major chemical plants, and six tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey to New York City, and if that were not enough, an area in northern New Jersey between Liberty Airport and Port Elizabeth commonly referred to by the FBI and others as the most dangerous 2 miles in America.

The Menendez amendment seeks to address one of the most serious security threats facing our Nation today, and that is the threat of terrorist attacks on chemical plants and facilities.

According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, there are eight plants in New Jersey where a worst-case release of chemicals could threaten more than 1 million people per attack, and a recent article in the New York Times stated that a chemical plant in my district that possesses chlorine gas poses a potentially lethal threat to 12 million people who live within a 14-mile radius.

So this is obviously a very important matter for the district and State that I come from, but let me make a point here that this is not just simply a New Jersey issue. There are 15,000 chemical plants nationwide, and that same EPA data that I just referenced shows that 123 of these could pose a threat to at least 1 million people each time, if each one of those entities were attacked, if there were a release; 123 times a million, 123 million Americans.

My amendment takes a first step by providing $50 million to State and local governments in order to enhance the security of those chemical plants. Funds might be used by State and local officials to prepare plants to respond to and possibly even prevent attacks on these facilities. This money could be used to equip and train our first responders who would respond to such an attack. Such funds might be used to provide assistance and guidance to the chemical plant officials to implement best management practices that either improve security or use less caustic chemicals, or perhaps this funding could be used to increase law enforcement's presence in patrols around chemical plants. These are just by way of description.

According to the threat level set by the Department of Homeland Security, our local law enforcement agencies are then often asked to provide additional security for these plants. I have heard from several mayors and police chiefs about the serious financial burden those additional patrols are costing their cities, and over time, consequently, their ability to meet this challenge is really under siege; and I am sure this is a problem for law enforcement agencies across our country.

In New Jersey, some of these plants are surrounded by residential communities and transportation corridors that make this issue even more critical for us to secure. I believe if we look at that list of the Environmental Protection Agency across the country we will find that is often the case in other States in the Nation.

I strongly believe we must do what we can to protect our constituents from a clear opportunity here in which millions could be affected by what is otherwise a use of a facility for legitimate purposes.

This is not a new issue or one that is brand new for us. The Hart- Rudman report mentioned chemical plant security. Going back to that report, several of these plants are included on the national infrastructure list. So we are well aware of the problem, and we need to take steps to ensure security at these plants.

I very rarely come to the floor to offer amendments, but I feel compelled when we know the nature of the risk and we know the nature of the threat to do something about it.

This amendment is a modest first step. We do need to make these facilities and our constituents living near them safer and more secure, and I would just urge my colleagues to think about who among us would be content with the counsels of patience and delay if they were living within the radius of one of these chemical plants that could literally cause the deaths of millions of people and we did absolutely nothing to protect them.

In that context, I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me, and I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member on their thoughtful observations about this issue.

I understand the constraints under which they are working. I am not unmindful of that, which is why I rarely come to the floor on amendments because I understand that all of us could devise a different bill but you are given the responsibility collectively for us. But I would just need to make some comments in observation of what has been said.

Number one is the government's responsibility to protect its own people is not delegable to anyone, the private sector or any other entity outside of the government itself. We might want to place responsibilities, and I agree that there are responsibilities that should be placed upon certain legitimate corporate responsibilities, that should be placed upon people who operate in a society and who have a hazardous element to their operation and need to operate in a way and to protect their facilities in such a way that protects the greater good, but ultimately, ultimately the defense of the people is not delegable to any other entity.

The second point is that when I hear the chairman talk about the $50 million placed in critical infrastructure, I do appreciate that, but that is all critical infrastructure. That is nuclear power plants, that is electric grids, that is everything you can think of that we would develop under the rubric of critical infrastructure. And in that context, while understanding the limitations, it is a relatively small amount when you think about protecting all of the Nation's critical infrastructure.

I do not know, as has been pointed out by law enforcement, as has been pointed out by the Environmental Protection Agency, that this critical infrastructure that we talk about in terms of chemical plants does not come to a higher level, because ultimately the potential attack and emissions and the plumes that come from it can kill literally millions and millions of people. And that, in other respects, I think heightens it among the critical infrastructure that exists.

I understand that people are concerned about the management office, although I will note that that is where we just took money for another critical issue. But if you ask the American people between management and protecting the chemical coastways that are along and throughout the landscape of this country, I think they will tell you I would like to see the chemical coastways protected.

Even if we ultimately ask the private sector, those who operate these chemical plants, to have greater responsibilities, which I concur with, at the end of the day it will be police and firefighters who will respond to an attack. At the end of the day it will be a State policeman who will have to respond. These routes are public in nature. If you run along the New Jersey Turnpike, you can easily have access to that New York Times article and that chlorine plant.

So from a public road, an entity which the private sector would have no responsibility for, an attack could be levied. So, therefore, there are going to be resources necessary for the governmental entities, even with a heightened corporate responsibility, to perform. And that is my concern.

We have had Hart-Rudman talk about chemical plants, we have talked about it in the 9/11 Commission Report, and yet we are nowhere nearer to creating any private responsibility nor are we responding in a public context. Hence, that is my concern, and that is why I offer the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.