Corrine Brown

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank Chairman Young and Chairman Petri, and particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Oberstar for his leadership on this issue. This bill is over 2 years overdue, and that is just not fair to the Nation's traveling public who deserve better from this Congress and, of course, from this administration. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, yet there is a question as to the level of spending in this transportation bill. Clearly, the committee voted $318 billion for transportation. The Department of Transportation itself said that we needed $375 billion. They said $375 billion. The Department of Transportation statistics show that for every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure, it creates 42,000 jobs. It also saves the lives of 1,400 people, and you cannot argue with those figures. Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. The States get to improve their transportation and infrastructure. That creates economic development and puts people back to work; it enhances safety and improves local communities. By delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation, we are doing a disservice to the driving public and to the Nation as a whole. The States are battling red ink and want to see this bill passed. The construction companies, who are laying off employees, want to see this bill passed. And the citizens waiting in traffic jams in Orlando, Florida, and central Florida want to see this bill pass. Let us get serious about putting people back to work and let us pass a bill that truly meets the needs of the traveling public and not the needs of this President who is trying to look fiscally responsible while he runs up the national debt. I encourage everyone to contact their Members and ask them to support transportation funding that truly meets the needs of this growing Nation. We need to stop spending money everywhere but here in the United States. Transportation infrastructure spending is an investment in America, and it is time we spent money on something that benefits the people that are actually paying the bills.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their leadership on this issue. This bill is almost 2 years overdue, and that is just not fair to the Nation-traveling public who deserve better from this Congress and this administration. If you have been watching the floor today, you will know that we are building the world's largest embassy in Iraq, even though the Iraqi people do not want us there, and even though this will be the biggest target for terrorists in the world. We are spending $1 billion a week to destroy and rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, while completely ignoring the infrastructure right here in America, the people who are paying the bills. Transportation projects are a natural economic development tool which this Nation sorely needs. The Department of Transportation statistics show that every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs. Let me repeat that: 42,000 jobs for every $1 billion we invest, and $2.1 billion in economic activities. It also saves 1,400 lives. We cannot argue with those statistics. Transportation funding is a win-win for everyone involved. States get an improved transportation infrastructure that creates economic development, puts people back to work, enhances safety, and improves local communities. Why the President is opposed to this bill that has the potential of creating millions of jobs is beyond me. The President's own Highway Administration has stated that we need a minimum of $375 billion just to maintain current infrastructure. By delaying the passage of this much-needed legislation, we are doing a disservice to the driving public and the Nation as a whole. The States who are battling red ink want to see this bill passed, the construction companies who are laying off employees want to see this bill passed, and the citizens who are waiting in traffic jams want to see this bill passed. Let us get serious about putting people back to work. Let us pass a bill that truly meets the needs of the traveling public and not the need for the President to seem fiscally responsible while he runs up the national debt.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am Congresswoman Corrine Brown, and have served in the House of Representatives over twelve years. I have observed and monitored elections in areas as diverse as Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean, and Haiti in particular. In years past, I have traveled to Africa and other parts of the world to monitor living conditions and the status of human rights. From what I saw, although there was some tension in Lome before and during the election, I witnessed more than anything thousands of calm voters who patiently waited in long lines to vote for the candidate of their choice. Overall, the Togolese seemed very pleased that an American, particularly a Member of Congress, was present during the election. The election problems I encountered on Election Day were similar to voting problems in the United States. These problems consisted of the following: Very long voting lines, polls not opening on time, electricity (where it existed) going out briefly, and some voters' names not being on the voting rolls (by the way, I found it interesting that the international monitors in Togo told me they would not mention that I was from Florida). I stayed at the polls through the evening when the voting boxes from Lome's polling sites were brought to City Hall for a public count. Many of Togo's citizens, together with international observers and dignitaries, were present for the count which lasted into the night. Although our team stayed in Lome, there were observers stationed throughout the country. By the next day, the Economic Coalition of West African States (ECOWAS) declared that the election, although not perfect, was generally peaceful and successful. ECOWAS accepted the announced vote tally of 60 percent of the vote for Gnassingbe Essozimna Faure, declaring him the newly elected President of Togo. In addition to meetings and briefings with ECOWAS leaders, I also met with and worked closely with hundreds of other international Independent Election Monitors. To me, Togo's Presidential Election of 2005 was an exceptional election because of the unexpected death of Togo's President, who had been in power for thirty-five years. Under his rule, Togo developed a Constitution and a Parliamentary government with a Prime Minister. And, according to the Togolese Constitution, within 60 days of the death of a President, there must be a Presidential election, and Africa's Coalition of Economic Countries (ECOWAS) set the election date for April 24th 2005. Indeed, Togo's recent Presidential Election was important, not just for Togo, but for all of Africa and for the world. Clearly, each African election is newsworthy as another step towards democratization. I believe that a free, fair and democratic election in Togo was also particularly important, so that post election Togo does not descend into chaos, and destabilize the neighboring African countries with refugees. Lastly, as a sign of ongoing progress, the elected government and the opposition groups are meeting in Abuja, Nigeria's capitol, to discuss the distribution of power within the new government. Attending the meeting will be the African Union's chairman, Nigeria's President Obasanjo, and Niger's President Tandja, who is currently presiding over ECOWAS. Also in attendance are Faure Gnassingbe, Togo's elected President, representatives of Togo's opposition coalition, led by exiled leader Gilchrest Olympio, defeated presidential candidate Emmanuel Akitani Bob and Harry Olympio, an independent candidate, as well as the leaders of Gabon, Burkina Faso, and the UN Secretary General's representative, OuId Abdallah.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2057, which disapproves of DC. Act 16-47 (the Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Temporary Act of 2005), which calls for the rerouting of hazardous materials around Washington, DC. While re-routing hazardous materials from the Capitol area of Washington, DC sounds well-intentioned, it only shifts the risk of that transportation to other neighborhoods and other modes of transportation. The additional switching of these cars will add to the congestion in the yards, and back up traffic on CSXT main lines, potentially affecting their entire network, including Amtrak, VRE, and MARC. It also means that chemical containers could be sitting for hours, if not days, in rail yards waiting to be moved. Longer transit times and distances, increased car handlings and dwell times are factors that tend to increase the inherent risk of transporting hazardous materials. This would also add significant cost to the shippers, and potentially disrupt the flow of commerce for those customers like water treatment plants, pharmaceutical companies, gas stations, etc. The Federal Government has always had the ultimate authority over interstate commerce. The transportation of hazardous materials is governed by Federal regulations as proscribed under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which gives the authority to DOT. And it is important to note that the railroads are governed by the common carrier duty, which means we must carry what is legally tendered to them by law. Finally, the Department of Justice, the National Industrial Transportation League, the American Trucking Associations, the United Transportation Union, Norfolk Southern and others have either weighed in with an amicus brief in Federal Court, a letter to the STB, or a letter to the House Government Reform and Senate Homeland Security Committees. I call upon government at all levels to develop meaningful standards that improve safety and security for all modes. Rerouting freight from one backyard to another does not constitute meaningful standards to improve safety and security for any mode, and I encourage this Congress to promptly disapprove DC's ordinance.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the week of April 25th through the 29th, I was unable to make it to the House Floor to vote because I was unintentionally detained in the African nation of Togo. I have traveled to Africa on numerous occasions in the past, both as an election observer and as a human rights ombudsman and advocate. Most recently, I was in Nigeria (in April, 2003) during the momentous election which underlined that nation's continual transition to democracy. Many Members of the CBC, including myself, attended, and we were more than pleased to see that the outcome was just, and that popular, fair elections instead of a violent military coup decided who would run the government. Africa is a continent that is very near and dear to my heart, and is an area of the world that is too often overlooked and ignored. The recent presidential election that took place in Togo was the first election the country has witnessed in the last 38 years. As an invited election observer, I viewed with cautious optimism how people nationwide went to the polls and cast their vote for the next President of Togo. From what I saw, a position which was supported by 160 ECOWAS (Economic Countries of West African States) observers and hundreds of independent observers, the election appeared to be ``credible.'' Again, in my view, the election was a success overall, and I will be filing a complete report on my observations of the election in the near future. I would also like to thank the United States State Department for all of their help and support. Certainly, when a citizen of the United States leaves our country's borders, the Department of State takes over as the guardian and protector of U.S. citizens. Oftentimes, they do not get the credit they deserve for their hard work, dedication and service to our nation. I would like to particularly thank the United States Ambassador to Togo, Charles H. Twining, and United States Ambassador to Benin, Wayne Neill, as well as their staffs for all of their attention and assistance to me while I was in Africa. Again, I was unintentionally detained out of the country while serving as an Election Observer for the Presidential Election in Togo. The airport in the capital, Lome, was closed, and the borders out of the country were sealed.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to return to Washington to vote on April 26, 2005 through April 28, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Roll No. 133, ``yes''; Roll No. 134, ``yes''; Roll No. 135, ``yes''; Roll No. 136, ``yes''; Roll No. 137, ``yes''; Roll No. 138, ``no''; Roll No. 139, ``no''; Roll No. 140, ``yes''; Roll No. 141, ``yes''; Roll No. 142, ``yes''; Roll No. 143, ``yes''; Roll No. 144, ``no''; Roll No. 145, ``yes''; Roll No. 146, ``no''.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this time: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' Republican priorities: Many of them talk about protecting veterans and making sure veterans have the support they need when returning from protecting this country's freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 8, to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. This bill will cost the American taxpayer $290 billion over the next ten years. The cost over the first ten years could go to $1 trillion. Let me repeat that: $1 trillion. That is a huge cost to all of us. The bill gives a tax break to the wealthiest \3/10\ of 1 percent of estates, while imposing a new capital gains tax on most, including those of small business owners and farmers. At the same time, the Republicans passed a budget that calls for $800 million in cuts to the VA over the next five years. Clearly, the Republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of veterans' health care, and on the backs of the widows and orphans of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country's freedom. Today, this same house will vote on bankruptcy legislation that does nothing to protect our veterans. These brave men and women are serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan, while at home, their lives and livelihoods are going down the drain. Many of these people have gone into debt and the circumstances of their debt occurred either before, during or after their active duty. This bill does not help these people. Many of our service members--especially, the citizen soldiers of the Guard and Reserve forces, could face terrible financial problems because they do not qualify for a narrow protection of debt incurred while on duty if S. 256 becomes law. Since 9/11, approximately half a million Reservists and Guardsmen have been called to active duty: Some more than once. Hundreds of thousands of Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently activated in support of ongoing military operations. According to the National Guard, 4 out of 10 members of the National Guard and Reserve forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. The people of this country need to see what policies the republicans actually vote for. They talk the talk very well, but do not walk the walk or roll the roll for our veterans, who have sacrificed their bodies for this Nation.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today we introduced a bipartisan Amtrak reauthorization bill that will truly serve America's traveling public. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for joining me in this effort. This is truly a bipartisan effort and shows the strong support Amtrak has within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Congress. The current funding issues concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger rail service, or we can just let it fall apart and leave this country's travelers and businesses with absolutely no alternative form of public transportation. Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operational, we will soon see people that rely on Amtrak to get to work each day waiting for a train that is not coming. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to passenger rail service we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive. This issue is bigger than just transportation. This is about safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it needs to continue to provide service, we should be providing security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures in the entire rail system. Once again, we see the Bush administration paying for its failed policy by cutting funds to public service and jeopardizing more American jobs. This administration sees nothing wrong with taking money from the hard-working Amtrak employees who work day and night to provide top-quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living for their families, and they do not deserve such shabby treatment from this administration. We spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month, but this administration zeros out funding for Amtrak. Just one week's investment in Iraq would significantly improve passenger rail for the entire country for an entire year. I just want someone to explain to the American public why investing in transportation in Iraq is so much more important than investing in passenger rail service right here in the U.S. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this administration to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what is in the best interest for the traveling public, not what is best for the right ring or the Republican Party or the European counters over at OMB. Today in America, we have 50 million people without health care. We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country. We have a $477 billion Federal deficit. We have a $375 billion shortfall in transportation funding, and we still do not know what happened to the weapons of mass destruction or who at the White House outed one of the CIA agents. Yet this President's top priority is bankrupting Amtrak. I do not understand that. I represent central Florida, which depends on tourists for its economic development; and we need people to be able to get to our State to enjoy it. Ever since September 11, more and more people are turning from the airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable services. This is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my State. Amtrak runs four long-distance trains from Florida, employs 990 residents with wages totaling over $43 million, and purchased over $13 million in goods and services last year alone, and they are doing the same thing in every State they run in. Some people think the solution to the problem is to privatize the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we deregulated the airline industry. Shortly after 9/11, I was in New York when the plane leaving JFK Airport crashed immediately after takeoff. I, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized once again just how important Amtrak is to the American people and how important it is for this Nation to have more than one form of transportation. I encourage everyone that uses Amtrak to get to work or to travel to call their Congressman or Senator and let them know how important Amtrak is to them. This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation need and deserve.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill does nothing to protect our heroic Reservists and Guard who are fighting for us every day in war.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the Republicans' priorities. Many of them talk about protecting veterans and making sure that veterans have the support they need when they return from protecting this country's freedom in Iraq. Today the House passed H.R. 8 to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. This bill will cost the American taxpayers $295 billion over the next 10 years. The cost on the first 2 years could go as high as $1 trillion. This bill gives a tax break to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates, while imposing a new capital gains tax on most of us, including small business owners and farmers. At the same time, the Republicans passed a budget that calls for $800 million in cuts to the VA over the next 5 years. Clearly, the Republicans are attempting to balance the budget on the backs of the veterans. Tomorrow, this same House will vote on bankruptcy legislation that does not protect our veterans. Many of our servicemembers, especially the citizen soldiers of the Guard and the Reserve forces, face terrible financial problems because they do not qualify for a narrow protection of debt incurred while on duty if S. 256 becomes law. Since 9/11, approximately half a million Reservists and Guardsmen have been called to active duty, some more than once. Hundreds of thousands of Reservists and National Guardsmen are currently activated in support of the ongoing military operations. According to the National Guard, four out of 10 members of the National Guard and Reservist forces lose income when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. The people of this country need to see what policies the Republicans actually vote for. They talk the talk very well, but they do not walk the walk or roll the roll for our veterans who have sacrificed their bodies for this Nation. Today, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member, filed a bill for mental health for our veterans. It is clear that they are slipping through the cracks, and we need to focus our attention on how to assist veterans returning from the war, whether it is economic, whether it is health care, or whether it is to make sure that they have their jobs and have a seamless transition. We need to do more than talk the talk. We need to make sure that our money follows all of this rhetoric we have on the floor constantly about how we support the veterans. It should not be just talk, but it should be our actions.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the EPA is trying to exploit the poor people in my district for their pseudo-Nazi and Tuskeegee-like studies to determine what pesticides do to infants and toddlers in Duval County Florida. In October, the EPA received $2.1 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto Critics of the research, including some EPA scientists, claim the study's funders guarantee the results will be biased in favor of the chemical industry, at the expense of the health of the impoverished children serving as test subjects. The families would have to keep spraying, even when the directions on the bottles say ``cover all food and keep pets and children outside and away from the pesticides.'' The point of the study is to determine what happens to children exposed to pesticides. There is no reason to believe that the participants would be informed about incorrect use of pesticides that would abnormally affect the children. Any change in pesticide use would skew the results. In fact, EPA policy recommends that children be kept away from all pesticides because all pose some health risks. But the agency will not be warning parents in this study group. Doing so would interfere with the study. Infants and toddlers up to 3 years in age are involved, and the agency will warn their parents of the pesticide danger only if their children begin to show risky levels of pesticides in their urine, There are no safeguards to prevent a family from increasing their pesticides use to become eligible for the study. This is a low income area. $970 over two years, plus a video camcorder is a lot of money to many people. The EPA Press Release for this study said: ``As part of this exposure study, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has signed a cooperative research agreement with EPA to collect information on exposures of young children to several household chemicals, including phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals.'' These classes of chemicals have been shown to have effects on male sperm counts in adults, and are known to be dangerous. The European Union is in the process of banning these drugs. This project is symptomatic of a larger problem. This administration has been pushing to increase human testing. American kids should not be guinea pigs for a misguided administration proposal to help the large pesticide companies increase sales.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. It is not you; it is your policy. When I say ``big dog,'' I am talking about those huge tax cuts to the rich while we cut veterans programs, programs for health care, programs for the people that need it the most.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Their budget and our budget really is the compassionate budget that is fiscally responsible. I have comments from the American Legion, from the national legislative director of AMVETS, from the national legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I just want to paraphrase what they said: We think cutting veterans benefits, talking about the majority budget, is, and I paraphrase, unacceptable, especially at a time when American soldiers, sons and daughters, are being wounded and killed every day in Iraq. In addition, it appears that this pattern of shortchanging veterans medical care continues in the 109th Congress. American veterans and their families deserve better. Let me just give a few examples of how we strengthen one national defense. I will put all of it in the Record; but clearly in this House, in closing, only the big dogs eat in this House. I rise strongly to support the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. We are truly the conscience of this Congress. This budget represents true compassion with fiscal responsibility. It includes increases in programs that the American people believe in and that the Republicans just give lip service to. Our budget includes increased funding for: education programs, school construction, job creation programs, child nutrition programs, community health centers, and Amtrak, which 800,000 American's use to get to work, and whose budget got Zeroed out by this foolish Administration. And unlike the Republican's, it doesn't balance the budget on the backs of the veterans, the homeless, seniors, and the poor. In the Republican's House, the Big Dogs Eat first, and everyone else has to get in line. Do the right thing for the American people. Support the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. I would like to thank Mr. Watt and Mr. Scott for their hard work on putting the CBC alternative budget together. If we do not take care of our veterans now, we will not have the boots on the ground in the future to respond to any attack against us or our allies. This budget straightens our priorities to include both defending our country and the freedom it cherishes and giving our veterans the chance they need to succeed once they leave the service. All of the funds reduced from Ballistic Missile Defense are reallocated within various functions to provide for additional support for the troops in Iraq and other defense items necessary to maintain our military strength and jobs ($1.1 billion), homeland security needs ($2.05 billion), and veterans programs and benefits ($4.65 billion). All calculations are for changes above/below proposed Fiscal Year 2006 levels included in the Republican budget. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Defense: Body armor, personal support equipment, and $75 million. other protective gear for troops, and vehicle armor. Ammunition for Marine Corps................... $10 million. Small Arms for Army........................... $10 million. Building/Maintenance of Navy ships............ $1 billion. To study instances of waste, fraud and abuse $5 million. within DoD business processes and implement specific GAO recommendations for reform. Veterans: +$4.65 billion Veterans Health Care.......................... $1 billion. Survivor Benefit Plan......................... $100 million. Disabled Veterans Tax [``concurrent receipt''] $2.5 billion. Fund long-term care initiatives for veterans.. $400 million. Remove proposed $250 enrollment fee on $300 million. Priority 7&8 veterans. Remove proposed increases in co-payments for $150 million. Priority 7&8 veterans. Prosthetic needs for veterans................. $100 million. VA Medical and Prosthetic Research............ $50 million. Mental Health Care for Veterans............... $50 million. Allowances (all for purposes of Homeland Security): +$2.05 billion Rail Security................................. $100 million. Port Security, including air cargo screening, $500 million. preventing nuclear/radiological weapons in cargo containers, research and development, and grants. Centers for Disease Control................... $250 million. First Responders.............................. $900 million. Interoperable communications systems for first $85 million. responders. Federal air marshals.......................... $65 million. Internal Customs Enforcement/Border Patrol $150 million. Agents. Total Defense Funds Used, All of Which $7.8 billion. Are Reallocated to Defense, Homeland Security Needs, and Veterans Programs and Benefits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this budget matter. Shame, shame, shame. I cannot believe the Republican budget. Our men and women that serve this country are putting their lives on the line, and what are we doing? Cutting benefits and refusing service. I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating over and over again. ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, should be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars are treated and appreciated.'' The independent budget puts support by the veterans community as $300 billion short. I say that President Bush's budget and the House Republican Bush budget should be dead on arrival. Let me repeat that. I said that Bush's budget and the House Republican budget as it relates to veterans should be dead on arrival. On top of all of this, this budget tells the Veteran's Affairs Committee, which I am on, to find $800 million in cuts over the next 5 years for savings. You know, the Republicans practice what I call reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the veterans to give tax cuts to the rich. The President keeps telling us we are at war. Well, put your money where your mouth is.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to point out ridership on Amtrak is up 1 million passengers. People are using the services. You lawyers do this, suppose this. Well, let me just say, my position is what happens when failure is not an option. We cannot fail the American people on this issue. This issue is bigger than us. This is bigger than the Congress. This is about the future of America. It is about post-9/ 11 and whether or not we are going to provide the safety that the American people need. We are talking about homeland security. This is homeland security. We have got to make sure that we can move people and not just invest in operations, but we need to invest in safety, and not just for Amtrak but for all of the systems. Because look what happened in Madrid when the Amtrak was bombed. I mean, those are the kinds of things that we need to be looking into. How can we make sure the system is safe for the ridership? This administration is short-minded. They have their priorities backwards in many areas. And certainly, I feel that, I guess when you get a 53 percent mandate, you got it going on. But as far as I am concerned, the American people need to understand, and I think it is our job to help educate them on the importance of Amtrak and give them a method that they can communicate to us and let us know that Amtrak is important. With that, I am proposing that we do a series of whistle stops throughout the country. I think the Members need to get out into the districts, ride the train, and talk to the people that are doing that ridership. And we are working on that, and we are organizing that. And I hope that the gentlewoman will participate because I think that the best thing to do is to have townhall meetings where the people can give us direct input. This is the people's House, and we represent the people of the United States, and we are closer to them. We have to come before them every 2 years. And so I think this would be one avenue with those whistle stops, to get out and talk to the American people and hear what they have to say about Amtrak. My hour is up. I am going to close by just saying, what do you do when failure is not an option? Failure is not an option when it comes to Amtrak. We must have Amtrak passenger rail service in this country. The current funding issues concerning Amtrak brings up a fundamental question of where this Nation stands on public transportation. We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart, and leave this country's travelers and businesses with absolutely no alternative form of public transportation. Without the funding Amtrak needs to keep operating, we will soon see people that rely on Amtrak to get them to work each day, waiting for a train that isn't coming. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation, but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide the money Amtrak needs to survive. This issue is so much bigger than just transportation. This is about safety and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it needs to continue providing service, we should be providing security money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures in the entire rail system. Once again we see the Bush Administrations paying for its failed policies by cutting funds to vital public services and jeopardizing more American jobs. This Administration sees nothing wrong with taking money from the hard working Amtrak employees who work day and night to provide top quality service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living for their families, and they don't deserve this shabby treatment from the President. It's time for this Administration to step up to the plate and make a decision about Amtrak based on what's best for the traveling public, not what's best for the right wing of the Republican party and the bean counters at OMB. I represent Central Florida, which depends on tourism for its economy, and we need people to be able to get to the state to enjoy it. Ever since September 11th, more and more people are turning from the airlines to Amtrak, and they deserve safe and dependable service. And this is just one example of Amtrak's impact on my state. Amtrak runs four long-distance trains through Florida, employs 990 residents with wages totaling over $43 million, and purchase over $13 million in goods and services last year alone. And they are doing the same thing in every state they run in. Some people think that the solution to the problem is to privatize the system. If we privatize, we will see the same thing we saw when we deregulated the airline industry. Only the lucrative routes would be maintained, and routes to Rural locations will be expensive and few. I was in New York shortly after September 11th when the plane leaving JFK airport crashed into the Bronx. I, along with many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate took Amtrak back to Washington. I realized once again just how important AMTRAK is to the American people, and how important it is for this nation to have alternative modes of Transportation. This isn't about fiscal policy, this is about providing a safe and reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation need and deserve. Amtrak was created by Congress in 1970 to take over the money-losing passenger rail service previously operated by private freight railroad companies in the United States. More than half of all rail passenger routes were eliminated when Amtrak began service on May 1, 1971. Although Amtrak's route system has remained essentially the same size, it represents a mere skeleton of what was once the United States' passenger rail network. During the period from Amtrak's inception through 2003, the federal government has spent $1.89 trillion on air and highway modes. In the same time frame, Amtrak received just over $30 billion in federal subsidies. While the United States once had a passenger rail system that was the envy of the world, a lack of capital investment has stalled the advancement of corridor development throughout the country. Dependent upon an annual federal appropriation, Amtrak's national network is constantly threatened by under-investment, lack of a clearly articulated federal rail policy, and an uncertain future. Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving over 500 stations in 46 states on 22,000 miles of track with approximately 20,000 employees. During FY 2004, Amtrak carried just over 25 million passengers, representing an increase of over 4 percent compared to FY 2003. In addition to operating 300 daily intercity trains, approximately 850,000 commuters each day depend on operating agreements with Amtrak, Amtrak-owned infrastructure, or shared operations. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor is the heaviest traveled railroad in North America, with over 1,700 trains operating over some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. Compared to domestic airlines in FY 2002, Amtrak ranks 8th in ridership with a market share of 4.6 percent and 1st in passengers per frequency. In FY 2004, Amtrak generated approximately $2.06 billion in revenues and incurred approximately $3.18 billion in expenses, covering 65 percent of its operating costs, on par with Canada, Spain and France. No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form of public subsidy. Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York- Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle- Portland-Eugene. Amtrak owned property includes 2,141 railroad cars, 425 locomotives, 20 high-speed Acela train sets, a 97 mile segment of 95 mph track in Michigan, a 62 mile segment from New Haven, CT to Springfield, MA, 104 miles of 90 mph track in Pennsylvania, and 363 miles of the Northeast Corridor connecting Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston; the busiest passenger line in the country. All transportation in the United States is directly or indirectly subsidized. Unlike aviation, highways and transit, there is no dedicated fund for investing in passenger rail development. These other modes all operate on predominantly federally owned or federally assisted infrastructure, and rely on government-supported security, research, and traffic controllers. In FY04, the United States Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget included $34 billion for highways, $14 billion to the FAA, and $1.217 billion for Amtrak. Amtrak's FY 2004 appropriation of $1.217 billion represented 2 percent of the Department of Transportation's $59 billion budget. Countries with well-developed passenger rail networks but much smaller populations such as Germany and Japan invest $3-4 billion annually on passenger rail, representing over 20 percent of their total transportation spending. In 2000, Canada announced a dedicated source of capital for five years to fund new equipment, modernize infrastructure, and improve its existing passenger railroad network. Canada's system is \1/3\ the size of Amtrak's and has \1/6\ the ridership. The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that investment in passenger rail will reap benefits. Amtrak's corridor services operate over a 6,000-mile route system and serve 23 states, primarily in the Northeast, Midwest and along the Pacific Coast. With the exception of some trains operating between Boston and Washington, which cover their direct operating costs but not the corridor's significant capital costs, none of Amtrak's corridor or state routes covers all of their expenses from fare box revenues. Outside the Northeast Corridor, five other corridors carry over one half million people annually. These corridors are: San Diego-Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo; San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn; New York- Albany-Buffalo; Oakland-Fresno-Bakersfield; and Vancouver-Seattle- Portland-Eugene. Thirteen states provide operating support for 20 different routes, with payments totaling over $135 million in FY 2004. Many states, including California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, and Washington recognize the benefits of investing in corridor development, and have spent substantial state funds to improve services with positive ridership results. Currently, Amtrak operates the high-speed Acela Express service, which travels in the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington in approximately 2 hours 45 minutes, and Boston and New York in approximately 3 hours, 20 minutes. Amtrak now carries 50 percent of the air/rail market between New York and Washington, and 39 percent of the market share between Boston and New York. This is up from 36 percent between New York and Washington and 18 percent between Boston and New York before Acela Express was introduced. This demonstrates travelers will increasingly use a reliable, trip-time competitive alternative to the congestion that is otherwise choking our cities. Corridors in which states have invested funds to improve trip times and frequencies include the Pacific Surfliners in California and the Cascades Service in the Pacific Northwest. These corridors have multiple frequencies and the potential to become higher-speed rail corridors once infrastructure improvements can be made. The State of California has invested approximately $100 million per year in passenger rail over the past 10 years and its state-supported trains carried 4.25 million passengers in FY 2004, representing approximately 17 percent of Amtrak's national total. These trains are consistently achieving double-digit ridership growth, proving that investment in passenger rail will reap benefits. The route through the Northern part of the country, the Empire Builder, which carried over 437,000 passengers last year, is the only public transportation service in many communities in North Dakota, Montana and Northeastern Washington. For most of the states along the Empire Builder, tourism serves as a major economic engine. A recent study identifying the economic contributions of the Empire Builder demonstrated nearly $14 million in annual economic benefits to the state of Montana alone. Long-distance trains also provide transportation during periods of severe weather conditions or emergencies that stall other modes of transportation. This was demonstrated after the September 11 terrorist attacks that grounded air travel. Additionally, these trains provide a strong economic benefit for the states and communities that they serve. The majority of passengers on the long-distance trains do not travel between the endpoints, but rather to any combination of city pairs. For example, the Southwest Chief, which travels from Chicago to Los Angeles via Kansas City, has 33 stops, creating 528 possible trip combinations. Most of Amtrak's expenditures are due to the immense capital needs of its infrastructure, particularly the Northeast Corridor, not the operating costs of the long distance trains. These operating cost figures should be cited with caution. Critics often refer to the ``loss per passenger'' of the tong distance trains. However, each long distance train passenger is the equivalent of five short distance train passengers because of the greater distances traveled. More importantly, these ``loss per passenger'' figures often include not only the ``avoidable'' costs of operating individual long distance trains (such as the cost of diesel fuel) but all of the shared costs that Amtrak incurs for the benefit of both long-distance and corridor trains (such as the cost of mechanical facilities, Amtrak's computer systems, and stations like Los Angeles Union Station). Including shared costs produces inflated and misleading ``loss'' figures, since these costs will not go away if long distance trains are eliminated. Eliminating all long distance trains would produce negligible cost savings in the first few years because of the requirement that Amtrak pay labor protection to impacted employees. When these payments ended after five years, the savings would still be minimal: around $300 million annually. Eliminating individual long distance trains produce even fewer savings: most of the shared costs of Amtrak's long distance network, such as the costs of maintenance facilities that serve multiple long distance trains, would remain. Additionally, Amtrak continues to make changes to its long-distance trains that will improve revenue and finances for the system. Amtrak recently exited from the mail and express business, resulting in shorter and more convenient schedules, with reduced labor costs. The repair of wreck-damaged equipment continues and will allow Amtrak to increase capacity, and therefore revenues, on long distance trains, which often sell out. These changes should help further reduce the losses of long-distance trains. Amtrak's right to operate passenger trains over freight railroads comes from the Rail Passenger Service Act. This act states that: Amtrak has the right to access all rail lines in the U.S. to operate intercity passenger trains and; Amtrak trains have dispatching preference over freight trains. With the exception of trains over the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, Amtrak trains operate over tracks owned and managed by the nation's freight railroad companies. In the past, congestion on these freight routes has caused delays for Amtrak trains, however, this past summer has seen significant delays and inconveniences to Amtrak's passengers across the country. Amtrak's 5-year Strategic Plan, which was approved by its Board of Directors on June 10, 2004, specifies that approximately $1.8 billion will be required for fiscal year 2006. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, both the now defunct Amtrak Reform Council and the DOT-IG acknowledge the need for at least $1.5 billion in capital and operating support. Seeking no funds for direct Amtrak expenses and ceding control of the railroad to a bankruptcy trustee, whose legal responsibility is to Amtrak's creditors, represents a drastic and unrealistic turnaround in the Administration's policy. Since David Gunn's arrival, Amtrak Total Ridership has increased by 11.6 percent. The number of intercity trains operated have increased by 21.4 percent. The number of trains on the NEC has increased by 29.2 percent while others have increased by 17.3 percent. Ridership on the NEC is 10 percent and other corridor trains, like the Pacific Surfliner, Capitals and San Juaquins in California and the Cascades in Oregon and Washington have increased by 27 percent driving a 12 percent increase in ticket revenue. Americans have chosen it as their form of travel in record numbers. In the 3 years post September 11th, Amtrak has proven its value to the nation and has increased its ridership steadily. Last year, Amtrak carried 25 million passengers, up from the previous year's record. When given the option, travelers choose Amtrak over other, less convenient forms of travel. In FY04 the air-rail market from DC to New York was split 50 percent to 50 percent, Los Angeles to San Diego was 30 percent to 70 percent and Portland to Seattle was 30 percent to 61 percent. David Gunn has made real progress reforming the railroad since taking the helm in May of 2002. Over the last 30 months he has decreased the workforce by more than 22 percent, removing unnecessary layers on management, increased train service and operation, eliminated and realigned routes for greater efficiency and implemented more internal reforms than any of its previous CEOs. In fact, Amtrak's core operating expenses are lower today than they were when he took over. David Gunn has made real reforms and has proven to be the right person to continue fixing the problems that have plagued Amtrak over the years.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I was in New York at that time. I had checked out of the hotel, and the hotel would not let us back in. We did not know what was going on. And everything shut down, like the gentlewoman said. The airport shut down; the bridges shut down. There was no way out of the city. I went to the Amtrak station and there I saw several Members of the Senate and the House, and that is how we were able to get out of New York City and get back into Washington, D.C. It is a safety issue. Why would the richest country in the world even consider not having a rail transportation to move people in time of crisis.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. And it took all day, because the group was stationed out of Jacksonville, so we flew from here to Miami, then we went to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, then to Jacksonville. That was the only way we could get out of the city. But let me mention to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, after September 11, there was another plane that went down in New York. I do not know whether you remember that; it went down in Queens.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, our local Coast Guard came to Washington and carried the Florida delegation home.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. We are working on the bill; hopefully, we will pass it tomorrow. But I want to point out, we are looking at a bill that is $284 billion, and our Department of Transportation indicated that we needed $375 billion. So we are way behind. This is because this Bush administration does not support the investments that we really need to make in transportation, and that is why we are 17 months behind passing a transportation bill that the country and all of the Governors, the local communities, the private sector, they all need this investment, because our infrastructure in the United States is falling apart.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the delegate from the District of Columbia who is a leader on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and has been on that committee ever since I have been here in Congress for over 12 years, and I know longer, but certainly is the voice for transportation, not just in the District, but in the country.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion. Would the gentleman believe that we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, $4 billion a month in Iraq, and with $3 billion, it would completely fund the Amtrak system and bring it up to date. The people that pay the bill are getting the short end of the stick.

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Zero.