Corrine Brown

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. In closing, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are now threatening to shut down the Government unless President Clinton signs on to the Republican plan to abandon our Nation's poorest, sickest, and most disabled citizens by repealing Medicaid. This cruel Republican agenda will hurt children, veterans, pregnant women, and seniors. Two-thirds of Florida's nursing home residents get help from Medicaid. Almost a million children in Florida get emergency health care from Medicaid every year. These seniors, these children, and many of Florida's 2 million veterans may look to Medicaid in the next few years and find that they are out of luck. When it comes to family values, the Republican Party talks the talk but they certainly do not walk the walk. And this budget proves it.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face to Florida's veterans. The President requested $154 million for the Brevard County Hospital which would serve Florida's veterans in and around my district. But the Republicans in Congress took away that money. That hospital so desperately needed by veterans will not be built. Where do sick veterans in Florida go for hospital care? For the last few years, hundreds of Florida veterans who have developed psychological problems are shipped out of State. That's right. They get shipped off to Mississippi and Alabama for their care. Two beautiful States, indeed, but far away from their loved ones in Florida. I think this is wrong. To me, there is nothing more compelling than the need to care for veterans who suffer the effects of fighting our wars. That's why Florida needs the Brevard County Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the VA- HUD appropriations bill. President Clinton has announced his intention to veto this bill because it funds veterans programs at $900 million less than what he requested in his budget. Right now, nearly 2-million veterans live in Florida, nearly 60,000 in my district alone. More veterans live in Florida than in any other State except one. And 100 veterans move to Florida every day. These men and women are growing older and need medical care. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face to Florida's veterans. The President requested $154 million for the Brevard County Hospital which would serve Florida's veterans in and around my district. But the Republicans in Congress took away that money. That hospital so desperately needed by veterans will not be built. Where do sick veterans in Florida go for hospital care? For the last few years, hundreds of Florida veterans who have developed psychological problems are shipped out of State. That's right. They get shipped off to Mississippi and Alabama for their care. Two beautiful States, indeed, but far away from their loved ones in Florida. I think this is wrong. To me, there is nothing more compelling than the need to care for veterans who suffer the effects of fighting our wars. That's why Florida needs the Brevard County Hospital. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, with this bill, almost all renovation and construction of veteran's health facilities will terminate. A funding freeze would lead to a sharp reduction in the number of employees who counsel veterans and decide claims for benefits. The VA's award-winning medical and prosthetic research program would be cut in every year under the freeze. Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is a top priority. And I am committed to doing just that. The President is also committed to a balanced budget. But in balancing the budget, a shared sacrifice is necessary. And I share the President's view that we must not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's most fragile citizens--seniors, veterans, poor women, children, and the disabled. Our Nation's veterans earned their benefits through service and sacrifice. It should be America's highest priority to honor our commitment with our veterans. I believe it is wrong to abandon our veterans who have gone in harm's way to serve our country. We need to take care of our U.S. service men and women--when they are fighting our wars, and when, as veterans, they need health care. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. President Clinton has announced his intention to veto this bill because it funds veterans programs at $900 million less than what he requested in his budget. Right now, nearly 2 million veterans live in Florida, nearly 60,000 in my district alone. More veterans live in Florida than in any other State except one. And 100 veterans move to Florida every day. These men and women are growing older and need medical care. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a slap in the face to Florida's veterans. The President requested $154 million for the Brevard County Hospital which would serve Florida's veterans in and around my district. But the Republicans in Congress took away that money. That hospital so desperately needed by veterans will not be built. Where do sick veterans in Florida go for hospital care? For the last few years, hundreds of Florida veterans who have developed psychological problems are shipped out of State. That is right. They get shipped off to Mississippi and Alabama for their care. Two beautiful States, indeed, but far away from their loved ones in Florida. I think this is wrong. To me, there is nothing more compelling than the need to care for veterans who suffer the effects of fighting our wars. That is why Florida needs the Brevard County Hospital. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, with this bill, almost all renovation and construction of veteran's health facilities will terminate. A funding freeze would lead to a sharp reduction in the number of employees who counsel veterans and decide claims for benefits. The VA's award-winning medical and prosthetic research program would be cut in every year under the freeze. Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is a top priority. And I am committed to doing just that. The President is also committed to a balanced budget. But in balancing the budget, a shared sacrifice is necessary. And I share the President's view that we must not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's most fragile citizens--seniors, veterans, poor women, children, and the disabled. Our Nation's veterans earned their benefits through service and sacrifice. It should be America's highest priority to honor our commitment with our veterans. I believe it is wrong to abandon our veterans who have gone in harm's way to serve our country. We need to take care of our U.S. servicemen and women--when they are fighting our wars, and when, as veterans, they need health care. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I forgot to say that 20 years ago Barbara Jordan represented this district, and that is really frightening because we are talking about regression here. This is the district that was held by Barbara Jordan, one of the first females elected to Congress.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Will the gentleman yield just for one moment before he leaves? Can the gentleman from North Carolina shed some light on what the Supreme Court will be reviewing as far as Shaw versus Reno?

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Will the gentleman yield just for 1 minute? I have my horror story that I want to put in. Florida's horror story. At the time Josiah Wells was the first Member of Congress from Florida. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1879 from Gainesville, FL. I represent Gainesville, FL, which is in the Third Congressional District. Josiah Wells' election was challenged and he lost his seat after only 2 months in office. However, by that time he had already been reelected to a new term. But listen, believe it or not, his next victorious election was challenged after the ballots were burned in the courthouse fire, ending the first congressional career of Florida's first black Representative. It took Florida 120 years to elect another African-American. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in yet another round of reapportionment cases; it has an opportunity to end the mischief started in 1993 when it announced its decision in Shaw versus Reno. In the Shaw case, the Court ruled that white voters can state a claim under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment if they allege that a district is so irregular or bizarrely shaped that it could only be understood as a racial gerrymander. Last term, in reviewing a Shaw- type attack on the congressional redistricting plan in Georgia, the Court went a step further. It ruled that where race is the predominate factor in redistricting that has resulted in the substantial disregard of traditional redistricting principles, then a district is presumed to be unconstitutional. When Shaw was first handed down, a number of civil rights groups and political observers felt that the decision would have minimal impact. But the Shaw decision has taken on a life of its own. Cases attacking congressional districts as alleged racial gerrymanders are pending in Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, State legislatures and local governments. Of course, it troubles me a great deal that the end result of all these cases may return us to the pre-voting rights days when the Halls of Congress were reserved for white males. In those days, congressional districts drawn to protect white incumbents, no matter how bizarre or irregular they looked, and regardless of the all-white racial composition, the districts were viewed as politics. Eliminating districts where minority voters comprise a bare majority of the voters will return us to the days of segregation when Congress resembled an all-white club. As troubling as all this is, I am equally concerned that the Supreme Court has refused to look at facts. The Court has consistently overlooked that in each of the States where the challenged majority minority districts were drawn, racially polarized voting patterns existed. What this means is that before the majority minority districts were drawn, a factual basis existed that minority voters were politically cohesive, that is, they supported minority candidates, and whites usually voted as a bloc to defeat the minority voters' preferred candidate. This is important because not only is the creation of majority minority districts necessary to overcome the effects of the white bloc vote, but the Supreme Court itself has consistently recognized in decisions spanning the last 20 years that such racial bloc voting has been the principal cause of minority vote dilution. What is especially troubling about this is that the Court seems to have accepted racial bloc voting as a fact of political life, but chooses to ignore the reality of its impact. Thus, in the Georgia case, the Court said that the deliberate creation of majority minority districts may increase the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority minority districts are said to counteract. In fact, the developing evidence that the opposite may be true, that creation of majority minority districts may be reducing, not increasing, bloc voting. Consider, for example, the majority minority congressional district in Mississippi created in the 1980's. The district was barely majority black and in 1986, Congressman Mike Espy was elected. In his first election, Espy generated only 21 percent of the white vote. In Espy's reelection bid in 1988 and 1990, nearly half of the white voters in the district voted for him. Other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have reported similar increases in white support after their initial reelection. We attribute this increase in crossover voting in two circumstances: First, our decision to represent all our voters regardless of race; and second, a reduction in white fear and harmful stereotyping that may have predated our initial election. The creation of minority opportunity districts comprised of a majority black voting age population does not entrench racial bloc voting. Although, there is a need to study the evidence that is available on this point, what evidence there is suggests that the creation of majority-minority districts promotes a political system in which race does not matter as much as it did before. Along with a number of African-Americans, I was elected to Congress in 1992 in a district that was one of the most integrated in my State. My district is roughly 50 percent black and 50 percent white in voting population. Does that sound segregated or gerrymandered? All of my constituents are important to me, whether they are black or white. That would be true whether my district was 50 percent black or 99 percent black. My district is one of the most Democratic districts in the State of Florida. Many of my voters had been disenfranchised. Redistricting since the 1990 census has marked tremendous gains for women and minorities. 1992, the year I was elected to Congress, was very historic for Florida. For the first time in over 120 years, an African-American was elected to Congress from Florida. At the same time I was elected to represent the Third Congressional District, my colleague's Representative Carrie Meek and Representative Alcee Hastings, were also elected to represent Florida in Congress. Sixteen new African-American Members, most from the South, were seated in the House of Representatives and one African-American Senator, Carol Mosely-Braun was seated, expanding the number of Congressional Black Caucus Members to 40, the largest ever. There are now 57 women, 19 Hispanics, 8 Asians, and 1 American-Indian. This is the highest number of minorities to ever serve in the history of the U.S. Congress. Despite these gains, less than 2 percent of the elected officials in this country are black. We still need the Voting Rights Act, we still have a long way to go. I, and others, would not have the privilege of serving in Washington if it were not for the courage and sacrifice of those great leaders who led the way before us. [[Page H 13800]] Let me tell you a little bit about a great leader, Josiah Wells, who was Florida's first Member of Congress. Josiah Wells was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1879, from Gainesville, FL, which is in the Third Congressional District. Josiah Wells' election was challenged and he lost his seat after only 2 months in office. However, by that time, he had already been reelected to a new term. Believe it or not, his next victorious election was challenged after ballots were burned in a courthouse fire. And thus ended the congressional career of Florida's first Black representative. Once Reconstruction began, 21 black Congressmen were elected from the South between 1870 to 1901. However, after 1901, when Jim Crow tightened his grip, no black person was elected to Congress from the South for over 70 years. It is more timely than ever, to study what happed to black representation during Reconstruction. This period may seem like ancient history, but what happened then seems to be happening all over again. The court would do well to consider these facts, rather than assuming the worst about the body politic and African-American Members of Congress. Integrated districts like mine are good for minority voters because they provide for electoral opportunities where none previously existed. They are also for democracy in the sense that they help to break down racial isolation and polarization. When a minority group like African-Americans, who were denied a representative in the Florida delegation for 120 years before my election in 1992, are able to elect their candidate to Congress, it makes our Government more legitimate because it is more inclusive and less prone to bias. I cannot understand why the Supreme Court would want it any other way, yet their decisions up to now are leading us precisely down that path. Because I have faith in the system and in the rule of law, I remain hopeful that the Court see these truths to be self-evident.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. I think representation, one of the things that the research will have shown is that, when African-Americans are elected, they represent all of the people. When we fight for school lunch programs, I want every last one of our kids to eat all over the country, really.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. In closing, next week, when the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in another reapportionment case, let me say that I have faith in the system, and I do believe that the Supreme Court can clear up what they have started in 1993 in Shaw versus Reno and acknowledge what really drives districts. It is not race; it is politics. It is politics, my colleagues. It is politics.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. It was a response to a pretrial hearing on Monday, October 19.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. If the gentlewoman will yield, I would just like to associate myself with those remarks about our leader. She has certainly been a role model for the women in Congress. Her leadership not only will be missed, but it is going to make our work extremely hard, because she has been just a Trojan for women's issues, for children's issues, and more national security issues. So this is truly a sad day for all of us.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. You mean your representation was not showing up once a year at the festival?

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mrs. Meek served in the Florida House, but when she was elected some 13 years ago to the Florida Senate, it was the first time in over 100 years that we elected a black to the Florida Senate, and she was the first black female ever elected to the Senate. So we do not have a long history in Florida of inclusion. And, in fact, before our election in 1992, it was the first time in over 100 years, I am sorry, 120 years, that an African-American came to this Congress to represent Florida, even though Florida's population, as far as minorities is concerned, is over 40 percent. Good-old-boy politics has controlled how the districts have been drawn throughout Florida. I do not know about any other place, but I can tell my colleagues about the history of Florida, and I know the gentlewoman from Georgia wants to yield to Mrs. Meek.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. If I may ask the gentlewoman to yield just for a moment to let me say one thing about the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Ms. BROWN of Florida. And time, and also the frustration on the people of the Third Congressional District. Often my constituents come to me and say what are they trying to do to our district? Why is it that the voters from the Third Congressional District and other districts in Florida have to wrestle with the question of whether or not we are going to have our district?

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Challenged, that is correct, and we are headed to court.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. If not in the country. So race was a factor, but just one of many factors. In fact, I am very proud of the Third Congressional District of Florida. Many of the people I represent were disenfranchised before my election. If we go back and just look at the way the voter participates in these districts, for example when we come out of an area and we are getting 80 percent of the vote, black and white, what does that tell my colleagues? That tells me that there is balance in my district. I have one of the most Democratic districts in the State of Florida.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Well, the fact is my district is one of the most integrated districts in Florida, if not in the country.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Well, it is not quite 50-50. It is 50.1 or 2.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. You cannot take the politics out of politics. However, the courts drew the plan for Florida, and, basically, we are now at the stage where there was a ruling last Monday in that the courts ruled, with a dissent, that the Third Congressional District was racial gerrymandering but still could be constitutional, and we will go to a hearing or a trial early next year to determine based on Shaw versus Reno and the case of Georiga.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This bill designates approximately 161,000 miles of highways in the United States as components of the National Highway System [NHS] and includes $6.5 billion for States to use for Federal highways. Under the bill's formula, Florida would receive approximately $234 million a year. I want to thank Congressman Rahall, Chairman Shuster, Congressman Oberstar, Congressman Petri, as well as former Chairman Norman Mineta for helping us to find Federal funds to replace Jacksonville's Fuller Warren Bridge. These funds will be combined with State and local funds--this is truly a Federal-State partnership. As many of my colleagues may know, I have been working on this project for 3 years. The need to replace the Fuller Warren Bridge has been recognized by local, State, and Federal transportation officials because its structural deficiencies have resulted in very serious safety and traffic congestion problems for a transportation edifice that is the gateway to our Nation's third largest State. Built in 1954, the Fuller Warren Bridge is functionally obsolete, its lane widths are insufficient, and it lacks safety shoulders. Consequently, Florida's Department of Transportation has identified this segment of I-95 to be a high accident location. In the past five years, 604 accidents have occurred along this segment resulting in economic losses exceeding $16 million. Accidents occur frequently due to the sudden narrowing of I-95 from a six- to eight-lane roadway to a four-lane bridge. In [[Page H 13323]] addition, the bridge's serious structural deficiencies in the last few years led to the bridge being closed for 6 days in January 1992 when engineers found cracks in the counterweights. In 1993, the bridge was closed again when a 3-foot chunk of the bridge's roadway fell into the St. Johns River. The new bridge will improve the substantial traffic congestion that exists for the traveling public strictly because of the existing Bridge's structural deficiencies. The severe traffic congestion caused by the Fuller Warren bridge is well known to both local and interstate travelers. Each bridge opening lasts approximately 5 minutes or more. These delays create significant problems that affect traffic flow long after the bridge reopens. These bridge openings lower the capacity and the level of traffic service on Interstate 95. In addition to the frequent bridge openings of 15 to 20 times a day, the narrowing of I-95 from a six- to eight-lane roadway to a four-lane bridge adds to the problems encountered by traffic on the approach to the Fuller Warren Bridge. The resulting bottlenecks back up traffic for several miles on each side of St. Johns River delaying motorists for upwards of 30 to 45 minutes for each bridge opening. When the bridge fails mechanically because of the lift mechanism, any detour that is implemented winds through the downtown area. When the bridge's lift span failed in January, 1992, traffic had to be detoured for six-days and getting through Jacksonville was impossible as some motorists had to travel 60 miles to the west and utilize I-75. As a result of these delays, fuel consumption is increased and the city of Jacksonville experiences decreased air quality. The Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] has determined that existing Bridge needs to be replaced with an eight-lane high rise fixed span structure. The replacement bridge will provide greater traffic capacity, needed safety refuge lanes, and the elimination of the frequent bridge openings and sufficiently address the safety and traffic congestion problems of the existing bridge structure. The Fuller Warren Bridge replacement project is underway. Engineering, Final Design, and Right of Way Acquisition have already been funded. The parcels of land required have been acquired. Final design has been completed. Construction is scheduled to begin early in 1996. However, the remaining $185 million construction cost is unfunded. Of this $185 million cost, about $37 million would be non-Federal contributions provided by the State of Florida and $148 million would be Federal highway funds, assuming an 80 percent Federal, 20 percent State split. This past June, the Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] developed a plan using local, State, and Federal funds to replace the Fuller Warren Bridge. The most important part of the plan is FDOT's decision to contribute $100 million of right-of-way bond funds, which are now available for bridge construction in the State, towards the construction costs of the Fuller Warren replacement bridge. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority [JTA] has stepped up to the plate and committed $25 million for the Fuller Warren Bridge. The final piece of the financial puzzle will come from S. 440, the National Highway System bill because it allows Florida's Transportation Department to use a sizeable portion of $97.5 million from a transportation project that has been terminated for the Fuller Warren Bridge. On behalf of the city of Jacksonville, I thank all of you. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concerns about the provisions in this bill which repeal our Nation's speed limit. Repeal of the national speed limit law endangers the safety of all Americans. Some State officials have already indicated their intent to immediately move to repeal safety laws if the Federal programs are eliminated. In several States, speed limits automatically go above 65 mph if the national maximum speed limit is repealed. If the national speed limit is repealed and we return to pre-1974 conditions, the Federal Transportation Department estimates that we will be faced with an additional 4,750 highway deaths each year, at a cost of $15 billion. Who pays the price, if the speed limit is repealed? Taxpayers ultimately bear the cost for emergency medical and police response, medical treatment, days or years of lost productivity, disability compensation for the motor vehicle crashes that will result from higher speed limits. We know that speed is a factor in nearly one-third of all traffic fatalities and that motor vehicle crashes already cost society more than $137 billion every year. The health care portion is approximately $14 billion--of which Medicare and Medicaid pay $3.7 billion or almost 30 percent. I strongly believe that we will see a dramatic increase in highway death as a result of this bill. I hope that I will be proven wrong, but I think that the supporters of the repeal will realize their mistake and we will be back on the House floor to correct it. Despite my concerns, I will support this conference report and ask President Clinton to sign S. 440 when it reaches his desk.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when I was a kid coming up, my favorite television show was ``Dragnet.'' Sergeant Joe Friday used to indicate constantly, ``The facts, ma'am, just the facts.'' That is what I want to discuss here today, how did we get in this mess with this Government shutdown, and just the facts. You know, instead of doing what we should have been doing, working on the budget and the appropriation bills necessary to keep the Government running, the so-called leadership of this House had us waste over 3 months on the Contract on America, a campaign gimmick that most Americans have never even heard of, or, for those who have, did not really care anything about it. As a result, it is mid-November, and only 4 of the 13 appropriation bills have been approved by Congress, 1\1/2\ months after all appropriation bills were due. Republicans still have not passed only four of them. To me, this is unbelievable, how 800,000 Federal workers have been furloughed, many veterans and seniors will not receive their benefits on time, and the Republicans continue to blame the President. The question I have is this: How in the world can the President be blamed for this shutdown when only 4 of the 13 appropriation bills have reached his desk? In addition, he does not have a vote in this House or the Senate. The answer is that he cannot be blamed for this. The responsibility lies on the leadership, the Republican leadership in this Congress. They are the ones who have failed to do what they were sent here to do. The Republicans are also the ones who have been threatening to shut down this Government if the President does not cave in to their extremist agenda. It was the Speaker who said last April that a Government shutdown and default would be political tools he would be likely to use as a leverage to push his extreme agenda. You know, if the Republicans really want to keep the Government up and running, they would have sent the President a clean continuing resolution. Instead, they forced the President to veto this legislation because of all the riders attached to it. Then, after the President vetoed the CR, the Republicans blamed him for shutting down the Government. But the American people are not buying it, and the American people are beginning to realize just how mean-spirited and extreme the Republican agenda is, and they do not like it. Along with this extreme agenda, the American people are also against the Republicans blackmailing and refusing to compromise. The Republicans need to stop playing blaming games and get down to business and do what the people sent them here to do. You know, I often say, ``You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time,'' and the American people are waking up to the Republican party.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, another attack against working people. Last time, they tried a sneak attack to take away the collective- bargaining rights of our Nation's transit workers. This time, it's to eliminate job protections for railroad workers. In its current form, the bill destroys the longstanding rights of workers of middle size or small railroads that are merged or sold. Supporters claim that the only way to ensure the success of railroad deals involving small rail lines is to eliminate employee protections. I disagree. This bill should not be used to gut major labor protections agreed to by labor, management, and the Government more than 50 years ago. That's why I support the Whitfield amendment, supported by rail workers, which addresses the concerns of the rail industry by exempting short line rail deals from any worker protection obligations. At the same time, it protects rail workers' collective-bargaining rights when middle- or large-size rail carriers are sold or merged and ensures that employees' interests are addressed before such transactions are completed. Just as this House voted to preserve section 13(c) for mass transit workers, I urge my colleagues to vote to preserve the employee protections for the thousands of hard-working railroad employees nationwide.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, I am very concerned as to this contract. The Republicans talked about the Contract With America. I have often said it was a contract on America. A contract on the elderly people, a contract on the children, a contract on the poor people. This reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the working people and the poor people to give to the rich. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have offered up provisions in this Contract With America that they could not pass in the Senate. I have always been so very proud of being a Member of the House. I served 10 years in the Florida House and 2 years here, and I have always been proud of the fact that the House deliberates, we have hearings. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can thank God for the other body who just do not take up this work, this sometimes trashy work this House has produced, and pass it on.