Julia Carson

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Social Security, the preservation of it for future generations, particularly with regard to women. As we know, there are more women in the United States than there are men; so it would be appropriate, then, to underscore the needs for women. Women represent a majority of Social Security recipients in the United States. According to the Social Security Administration, women make up almost 60 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries and approximately 71 percent of beneficiaries 85 years of age and older. Women rely heavily on Social Security because most do not receive private pensions; therefore, Social Security provides the foundation for most women's retirement security. Recent surveys indicate, Mr. Speaker, that over half of nonmarried women 65 and older receive 80 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Although Social Security is helpful for women, it still has many inequalities. Social Security tends to protect families consisting of a lifelong paid worker, who is typically the husband. However, women who often leave the workforce temporarily to have children do not receive the same benefits. Estimated predictions state that the Social Security benefits currently received would be 36.6 percent higher if women were paid as much as men. However, inequalities within the Social Security system are not only to blame for women receiving less benefits than men. The wage gap continues to hinder equality among recipients based on gender. Although the Equal Pay Act became public in 1963, making it illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of sex, almost 4 decades later the wage gap among women and men persists and this has a direct impact on Social Security. At the end of 2001, women's average monthly retirement benefit was, on average, $229 less than men's. Our retirement system is employment based, and women are unfairly penalized as they reach retirement age. However, Social Security was designed to be a guaranteed source of income for retired persons. Although both genders can sometimes find their benefits exhausted, women are particularly at risk. In my State of Indiana, not only is Social Security a necessity among women. It is crucial to many retirees, families, and disabled workers. In Indiana, benefits were paid to close to 1 million persons during the month of December, 2000. This number included over 600,000 retired workers, over 100,000 widows and widowers, over 100,000 disabled workers, almost 60,000 wives and husbands, and over 80,000 children. Social Security beneficiaries represent 16 percent of the total population of the State of Indiana, 95 percent of Indiana's population age 65 and older. Social Security is the heart of our Nation's insurance. When it was inspired and inaugurated under President Roosevelt in 1935, it was an excellent idea. It was a good idea then; it is a good idea now. It is both our fiscal and moral responsibility to provide our Nation's seniors, especially women, with the benefits that they so rightfully deserve. We cannot abandon our senior citizens and future generations. It would be a grave injustice to deprive them of Social Security benefits. Today's beneficiaries have worked long and hard, paid their taxes, earned their right to a happy and long retirement. It is the responsibility of Congress to make sure that this promise is kept. In Indiana, over 700,000 people receive Social Security benefits. Of that 700,000, Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of those beneficiaries are women, many of whom live in borderline poverty. We must not privatize Social Security. We must secure Social Security, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska to explain the resolution.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, let me say that, as you know, I introduced in the first session of this Congress H.R. 1300, the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2001. It was legislation that sought to prescribe parameters for block grants to States and territories to implement at their option media campaigns promoting responsible fatherhood. It would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to contract with a nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to develop and distribute media campaign literature that addressed the issue of responsible fatherhood to States, local governments, public agencies and private entities. Although I have only been a Member of Congress going into my sixth year, annually I have sponsored a workshop for the Congressional Black Caucus weekend dealing with fatherhood and responsible fatherhood and responsible partnerships. My legislation would have developed a national clearinghouse to assist States in community efforts to promote and support responsible fatherhood by disseminating information under this media campaign. I introduced also in the first session of the 107th Congress House Resolution 167, a resolution in support of fatherhood and in celebration of Father's Day. This evening I am here, Mr. Speaker, to support H. Res. 442, which was authored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), on which my staff and his staff worked together to try to figure out how we could best solidify the two measures for the benefit of advancing legislation dealing with fatherhood and responsible fatherhood legislation. I want to commend all of the responsible fathers who have worked laboriously to raise their children, along with their children's mothers, and who have provided college educations and lifetime opportunities for their children. There are certainly countless numbers of men who have been engaged in responsible fatherhood and who have been an integral part of the well- being and growing up of their children, and now are involved in the lives of their grandchildren. I think they stand as beacons, as role models in terms of what this country could in fact do for families if more fathers were responsible and accountable for their children. My legislation that I offered in no way intended to insult the kind of participation that fathers have with their children. I recognize that there are situations, Mr. Speaker, where the father is unable to be at home in the same household with their children as their children grow up, but under my legislation we intend to try to connect children with their fathers in a very responsible way so that children can enjoy the benefits of having their fathers involved in their lives. Approximately 50 percent of all children born in the United States spend at least half of their childhood in families without father figures. Three out of four adolescents in the United States report that they did not have adults in their lives that served as positive role models. Children who are apart from their biological fathers are, in comparison to other children, five times more likely to live in poverty, more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom, to commit other crimes, to drop out of school, to commit suicide, to abuse alcohol or drugs. Girls are inclined sometimes to become pregnant as teenagers. The Federal Government spends billions of dollars to address social ills, and very little to promote responsible fatherhood. Child support is an important means by which a parent can take financial responsibility for a child, and emotional support is an important means by which a parent can take social responsibility for a child. It is important for the United States Congress as a body to promote responsible fatherhood and to encourage loving and healthy relationships between parents and their children in order to increase the chance that children will have two caring parents in their lives to help them grow up healthy, secure, responsible and accountable. That is why I believe it is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that we do all that we can to ensure that every human being who is growing up to adulthood have access to two responsible parents in their lives and to ensure that fathers are not inhibited or prohibited through some archaic system from having active involvement in the well-being of their children. Mr. Speaker, happy Father's Day again. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his comments. Continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), and I thank the gentleman for his partnership in this effort.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for comments he may have in support of this effort.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, let me thank the gentleman very much for those very vital points that the gentleman inserted into this dialogue. It forces us to rethink our position in terms of the configuration of the family when we reflect on 9/11, as responsible fathers went to work to ensure that their families had economic well-being, only to be interrupted in terms of their life and being unable to go back. So when we talk about fatherhood and partnerships and responsible fatherhood, we do consider that there are circumstances beyond the control of the biological father which would propel us into action to ensure that children do, in fact, have a connection with a responsible fatherhood figure, if you will, in their lives. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). I too want to add accolades to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and certainly for the kind words from the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) and also to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). As we continue this dialogue in terms of these measures that are before us, I think that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) brought up a very valuable point, and I want to insert a very invaluable point, I believe. All children in the inner city are not the stereotypical kind that one would believe. I myself came from an urban area and was born to a teen-age single mother, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) made a good point that people can make choices about what it is that they want to be, and it is kind of difficult for us to muscle ourselves through life being branded as bastards, illegitimate, and coming from inner city areas. When you look back at some of the national episodes that occurred perpetuated by children that came from two-parent families, I think we have to stress the importance of building on the morals of an individual rather than classifying an individual by environment or by neighborhood or by all of these other systemic kinds of situations. Continuing to reserve my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), whose oratory is almost as good as mine, but it is a joy to have him in the delegation. I was just with him the other night at a dinner. He would not want anybody to know that, but I have to tell that, and I do have a lot of appreciation for the good work that my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), does; and it is a pleasure to yield to him.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana very much for his input, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, certainly I would like to do a premature congratulations to Alex Nock, who has worked very hard with the staff, and who in October will become a father. So I want to be the first one to tell him congratulations, and certainly to Ms. Nock. We look forward to this explosion of the population, and for him to move into the role that he has so aptly described in this resolution, along with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan). Continuing to reserve my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). Let me say before I release my right to object, to the coach, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), in particular, because I know what an impact coaches have on the lives of young men, and even though I do not know the gentleman personally, I have observed him, and just his style suggests that he has touched many lives of young people who have been guided in a very positive way. In Indiana we have Coach Dungy, who is head of the coaches, who is an incredible father himself to his biological children. But he has reached out and embraced other children who did not have the benefit of having the love of a father that he gives to his children. We have Mike Davis, an incredible coach at Indiana University, who has reached out and embraced other children who did not have the benefit of a personal father in their own life. We have Emil, who just left to coach and went to the Oakland Raiders, who has created an incredible program for the benefit of children, particularly young men who did not have fathers. We have Tim Harris, who is a millionaire, African American, all of the men I have mentioned, African American men who are reaching out doing what they can do for the benefit of young men who are not so fortunate to have a father in their home. But to coaches in particular, they do have a very special segment in the lives of kids. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to tell the gentleman how much I appreciate him and the many numerous lives that he has touched along the way in his profession. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the important issue of passenger rail in America and the future of Amtrak. The passenger rail system suffers from gross neglect of our investment. We have actively engaged in financing and developing and preserving the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation, whether it be bailing out the airlines, federally funding and fixing the State highway system, or subsidizing airport construction. However, we continue to be faced with the possibility that Amtrak may suddenly have to cease operations. Recently, Amtrak president David Young said that if Amtrak did not receive a $200 million loan in the next 3 weeks, it would have to begin shutting down operations. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we build a world-class passenger railroad system in the United States. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so overwhelmed that they can no longer operate, and we cannot continue to hold the millions of Americans who rely on rail service in limbo while we refuse to provide Amtrak with adequate funding. We must engage in long-term planning. The terrorist attacks of September 11 and the aftermath that followed exposed the vulnerability of our society, our economy when transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. After the FAA grounded all flights following the terrorist attacks, travelers turned to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during the time of national emergency. Amtrak's ridership and revenues skyrocketed, led by the northeast corridor, which had a 13.5 percent revenue growth and a 4.6 percent ridership growth in 2001. The system as a whole, including the corridor, revenue rose 8.2 percent, ridership 4.3 percent. The situation not only proved that Amtrak works but that passenger rail is critical to our transportation infrastructure during national emergencies or a security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the northeast corridor every day and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. Postal Office in the days following 9-11. Mr. Speaker, it was not until 1956 that the government began heavily promoting highway transportation with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established a highway trust fund based upon Federal user taxes in order to finance up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to pay for new roads and the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate and Defense Highway System. Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in the strengthening of the aviation industry. Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the railroad industry of unprofitable passenger operations and in the interests of maintaining a national passenger rail service. Per capita spending in America on passenger rail is dismal compared to the other 23 industrialized nations with rail service. I would like to present, Mr. Speaker, that part as a part of the Record for the edification of all those concerns. The material referred to follows: NARP--World Mainline Rail Spending Per Capita The United States ranks low among industrial nations in terms of its spending on rail spending--both in whole terms and per capita. Population density is not entirely a determining factor--on the chart below, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Canada all spend more than the U.S. per capita, yet have lower population densities. Estonia is slightly more densely populated than the U.S., yet invests over twice as much in rail per capita. Some states in the U.S. have population densities closer to that of some of the other countries. Even as a society, you get what you pay for. Is it any wonder that the passenger rail system in the U.S. is so skeletal compared to other countries? Selected countries, U.S. dollars, 1999--capital and operating support from governments to major national railways Belgium..........................................................834.39 Austria..........................................................117.30 Switzerland......................................................162.65 Luxembourg.......................................................160.69 France............................................................67.66 Slovenia..........................................................46.98 Italy.............................................................46.09 Netherlands.......................................................44.36 Ireland...........................................................43.75 Sweden............................................................39.09 Croatia...........................................................37.40 Britain...........................................................36.98 Slovakia..........................................................26.27 Norway............................................................24.92 Spain.............................................................22.76 Hungary...........................................................21.06 Czech Republic....................................................20.08 Germany...........................................................18.60 Romania...........................................................15.75 Yugoslavia........................................................13.83 Estonia............................................................7.67 Finland............................................................5.95 China..............................................................5.21 Canada.............................................................5.09 United States......................................................3.28 Poland.............................................................3.13 South Korea........................................................3.11 Turkey.............................................................1.55 Portugal...........................................................1.48 Saudi Arabia.......................................................0.82 Cameroon...........................................................0.23 Algeria............................................................0.20 Senegal............................................................0.17 Chile..............................................................0.17 Malaysia...........................................................0.16 Taiwan.............................................................0.15 Mali...............................................................0.02 notes U.S. spending includes 2000 federal appropriations for the Federal Railroad Administration (including for Amtrak and high-speed programs) and state payments to Amtrak. Canada includes VIA Rail Canada only, for 2000. Information from 1998 for Sweden and Taiwan. Information from 1997 for Luxembourg, Cameroon, Mali, Senegal, and Malaysia. International Union of Railways (UIC), Paris, for spending figures except: United States, from appropriations information; Canada, from Transport Canada; Britain, from Department of Transport, Local Government, and Regions; and China (includes infrastructure spending only), from International Railway Journal. Time Almanac (2000) for population figures. Yahoo.com for exchange rates (March 19, 2002; historical information from same source used where available). While we subsidize the building of roads and highways, Mr. Speaker, with tax dollars, we must ensure the survival of Amtrak. It is a wise use of taxpayer money. It is for the benefit of the American public. It is for the benefit of the transmission of cargo in this country. I would urge Members to sign onto legislation that I have authored which would authorize $1.5 billion annually for corridor developments. They are needed for the infrastructure, highway-rail grade crossing improvement, acquisition of rolling stock and track and signal equipment. Mr. Speaker, the rest of my remarks for the benefit of time and the limitation that has been afforded in this 5 minutes will go into a part of the Congressional Record for further explanation, but I would encourage the Members of this body who believe that America should engage in economic stimulus for the benefit of jobs, for the benefit of the American people, to sign onto my bill that would ensure the continued survival and viability of Amtrak, a very vital, needed service for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the important issue of passenger rail in America, and the future of Amtrak. The passenger rail system suffers from gross neglect of our investment. We have actively engaged in financing, developing, and preserving the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation. Whether bailing out the airline industry, federally funding and fixing the interstate highway system, or subsidizing airport construction. Finally, it will require an annual independent audit of Amtrak, to be reviewed by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General. By developing passenger rail as part of a balanced transportation system, this legislation will lead to the creation of jobs in the short run to stimulate our economy. In the long run, high-speed rail corridors will become a key foundation for our national rail passenger transportation system, which is critical to the strong backbone of a prosperous economy. I understand that this legislation is an ambitious blueprint, but I believe that with the appropriate funding, America's passenger rail can take its appropriate place as the best rail system in the world. We continue to be faced with the possibility that Amtrak may suddenly have to cease operations. Recently, Amtrak CEO David Gunn said that if Amtrak did not receive a $200 million loan in the next 3 weeks, it would have to begin shutting down operations. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we build a world class passenger railroad system in the United States. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so overwhelmed that they can no longer operate, and we cannot continue to hold the millions of Americans who rely on rail service in limbo while we refuse to provide Amtrak with adequate funding. We must engage in long-term planning to address future passenger transportation growth and show forethought in crafting transportation solutions--not wait for the impending crisis. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath which followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, travelers turned to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national emergency. Amtrak ridership and revenues skyrocketed, led by the Northeast Corridor, which had a 13.5 percent revenue growth and a 4.6 percent ridership growth in 2001. The system as a whole, including the corridor, revenue rose 8.2 percent and ridership 4.3 percent. The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that passenger rail is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national emergency or security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the Northeast corridor every day, and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. Postal Office in the days following the terrorist attacks. Transportation security, an essential part of our national security, requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. In September, we found that our dependence on the aviation system was basically stagnant. We cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system that includes a sound passenger rail system. Passenger railroads use less fuel per passenger mile than highway vehicles and commercial airlines. During these times of oil-consciousness, a larger presence of passenger rail in our transportation system would reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Passenger railroads, the interstate highway system, and our national aviation network have all taken different paths in their current roles in our national transportation system. The interstate highway system has received significant attention and federal funding since the construction of the Lincoln Highway in 1913 and the Rural Post Roads Act of 1916, and later during World War II with the Federal Highway Act of 1944. It was not until 1956, however, that the Government began heavily promoting highway transportation with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established a Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes, in order to finance up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to pay for new roads, and the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate and Defense Highway System. Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in a strengthened infrastructure, and follows much the same story of the highways system. Passenger rail service was once a vital instrument in the transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during World War II, not only did the railroads transport 90 percent of all defense freight, but also 97 percent of all defense personnel on their way to theaters of action. By the end of the war, railroads accounted for three- quarters of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic. However, with national focus turned to aviation and highways, by the late 1960s most rail companies were petitioning the Government to discontinue passenger services because of losses. Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the railroad industry of these unprofitable passenger operations, and in the interest of maintaining a national passenger rail network. But in retrospect, Amtrak was set up not to thrive and expand passenger rail service, but really to just maintain the status quo of 30 years ago. That attitude persists even today. Since 1971, Amtrak has received only $25 billion in public subsidies. During the same period, the United States invested $750 billion on highways and aviation. Per capita spending on a passenger rail is much lower than many other countries with the U.S. ranking behind the top 23 industrialized nations with rail service, and with your permission Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the record these funding levels, so that Members can be aware how drastically wrong our current policies are. No passenger rail service in the world has built and operated a passenger rail system at a profit. All have required Government support for construction and maintenance, or operating support, or both. That same principle holds true for highways and aviation, which have required substantial Federal spending since their beginning and continue to receive generous Federal subsidies today. Those who want passenger rail to operate with Federal assistance argue that we should not ``subsidize'' passenger rails. Yet we subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the building of airports and pay for all of the equipment and people needed to run our air traffic control system. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment to create a world-class passenger rail system in order to see the same kinds of benefits. From this, is evident that we need to reevaluate our Nation's rail passenger policy, and clearly define a role for Amtrak. A strong Federal role was required to establish the interstate highway system and the Federal aviation network, and now Federal investment in passenger rail infrastructure is critical. Once again, Federal leadership is required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure passenger rail network. In the coming weeks, I shall introduce the National Defense Rail Act, which will mirror S. 1991, introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings. This legislation provides a blueprint for the future of passenger rail in the United States. The bill will help develop high-speed rail corridors, which are the building blocks for a national passenger rail system. This will allow regional transportation solutions to play a part in the national system. It will also aid in the development of short distance corridors between larger urban centers, as well as provide funding to preserve longer distance routes for those communities that do not have the population densities to merit air service--sometimes the train is their only alternative to driving. Finally, it will provide Amtrak with the tools and funding it needs to operate efficiently. This legislation authorizes $1.255 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and life safety needs. This bill will give the Federal Government the script for the role it needs to play in establishing a national rail passenger system. It would not require any State contribution, and would give preference to projects having right- of-way dedicated to passenger rail, involving high-speed passenger service of 125 mph, although operations of 90 mph speeds or more would be eligible for funding, and those connecting to other modes of passenger transportation, including airports. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion annually for corridor development. These funds are needed for infrastructure acquisition, highway-rail grade crossing improvement, acquisition of rolling stock and track and signal equipment. This bill will also fund $35 billion in loan guarantees. This money will dramatically expand the current Railroad Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program. This bill eliminates the artificial limits on loan amounts, impossible collateral requirements, and unworkable loan cohort structures. This bill identifies existing high-speed corridors in 29 States and the District of Columbia for priority consideration. Many of these corridors are in areas where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on trips of 300 miles or less. In these areas travelers could take a high-speed train instead and arrive at about the same time. But right now they don't have that rail option, and they won't until we build it. The Northeast Corridor has become an invaluable asset to our national transportation system, and it should not be left in disrepair. This bill authorizes funds to enable Amtrak to eliminate its capital backlog of projects, maintain ongoing projects to capital infrastructure, and improve capacity to accommodate projected growth in traffic. It also allows Amtrak to reinvest revenues from operations in the Northeast corridor back into the backlog of capital infrastructure projects, and will require Amtrak to reinvest revenues from non-passenger operation into growth projects outside the Northeast Corridor. This bill ensures fair labor standards for all projects receiving funs under it, including payment of prevailing wages and allowance of collective bargaining over wage rates. Another immediate benefit will be the closing or improvement of highway-rail grade crossings in high- speed rail corridors. Under this bill, funds are set aside specifically for these important safety improvements. This legislation will provide the necessary funds of $1.31 billion for Amtrak to repair and upgrade the track it owns and operates in the Northeast Corridor. This corridor is a prime example of the benefits we can attain when there are transportation choices for travelers. The passenger railroad system that has worked well in the Northeast can work in other highly- congested areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run 3 hours late, many are asking us for help to build high speed rail. A short-term benefit of this legislation will be stimulation of the economy by providing jobs in developing new corridors. Millions of Americans have asked Congress to save Amtrak, and to ensure the future of passenger rail in the United States. I ask my colleagues to add a powerful voice to these millions, and join with me by cosponsoring this important legislation.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I would like to preface and qualify my remarks by saying that I am not at all opposed to the comments that emanated from the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) because losing jobs overseas is indeed an acute problem, especially in my district where Indiana alone has lost over 90,000 jobs to foreign corporations. I am going to speak in favor of this legislation in terms of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. If it passes today, of course it reauthorizes the sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee until September 30, 2006. It requires the bank to continue to report to Congress annually for each of the 4 years on steps taken in sub-Saharan Africa to increase U.S. exports and to consult with the Commerce Department and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Council on the bank's Africa activities. In the year 2000, trade with sub-Saharan Africa was 2 percent of total U.S. exports and 1 percent of total U.S. imports. Three-fourths of total U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa is with just three countries: Nigeria, South Africa, and Angola. When the 106th Congress passed major legislation to improve economic relations between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa, known as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, I supported that enthusiastically and thought that this country was taking a major step forward in terms of the enhancement of our partnership with Africa and African business. So I think that this bill for Indianapolis where we just celebrated a major exporter of businesses, the George F. Cram Global Company in Indianapolis just received a major award for outpacing others in terms of exporting this globe.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking member Reyes of the Benefits Subcommittee for their hard work to bring this bill to the floor of the House. This bill will allow the State of Indiana to tailor our veterans programs to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of veterans. These include eligible veterans who have served since the Vietnam War, including; Lebanon, Bosnia, Desert Storm, and Enduring Freedom. All 567,000 Indiana veterans and spouses of certain veterans will be eligible for priority of service for employment, training, and placement services in any job training program directly funded by the Department of Labor. It will also make eligible for federal contracts: disabled veterans; veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition in which a campaign badge has been authorized; veterans who participated in military operation for which an Armed Services medal was awarded; or veterans discharged or released from military service within the past three years. It is important that those veterans who served their country and settled around the country, like my home state of Indiana, should not be penalized for their military service. In fact, it should be celebrated. This will allow the experience of these veterans to enrich Indiana and add to the quality of life for all Hoosiers All states would now have an incentive to make that extra for their veterans, like the effort these veterans have made for our country. Mr. Speaker, this legislation can only help the veterans in Indiana and around the country and urge all my colleagues to join in my support.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Evans for their hard work in corralling all these important and diverse provisions and including them into one bill that covers all aspects of veterans and their survivors life. Increasing the funding for the state approving agencies by $4 million a year will help the Indiana State Department of Veterans Affairs determine if the beneficiaries of the Montgomery GI Bill are getting the education promised to them when they entered service for our nation. The 5,216 Hoosier veterans who used GI Bill payments for their education deserve the best education we can give. Reservists would be offered VA home loans at the same cost that active duty military receive. Today's military is more dependent on our nation's citizen soldiers serving in the Reserves than ever. They could be called up to serve overseas or across the country, away from their families and their homes for extended periods of time. It is only right that all men and women who put their lives on the line for this country be eligible for these home loans. The men and women from Indiana, who live and work there, whose kids go to school and they pay taxes deserve the same rights as active duty military. The spouse of a veteran suffered and served for our country almost as much as the veteran. They took care of the family and moving the house from base to base across the country so the servicemember could focus on his or her job for this nation. If widowed, and they find someone special with whom to spend the rest of their days, one worry they should not have is about their benefits. This bill will rectify that worry by allowing surviving spouses to retain benefits if they remarry at 65. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, is the increase in the cost of living adjustment for disabled veterans. The veterans of Indiana with service connected disabilities will appreciate an increase in their cost of living allowance, to allow them to be able to afford what could be considered the smaller things in life, but which make the quality of life more enjoyable. This increase will be tied to the increase in Social Security benefits, which is estimated to be 2.3% on December 1, 2002, when this COLA will go into effect. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and support the veterans of Indiana and this country.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this rule. The American taxpayers who pay our salaries deserve a full and open debate on the most significant piece of legislation concerning the lives of families and children across this country. If this were an open rule, of course, I would try to offer an amendment that does in fact enhance the position of fatherhood and fatherhood programs in a State. But, Mr. Speaker, States around the country are financially strapped. Indiana alone would be affected $211 million with the passage of this incredible legislation. Because it is as significant as it is, it deserves full and open debate. We have pushed unfunded mandates for education of our children from the Federal Government to the States; and the last time I looked at this bill, by whichever number it may be at this particular point, it would even deny persons an opportunity to get vocational education which would push them into the economic mainstream, into the job opportunities that would be afforded them from vocational education. I think that it is grossly unfair to punish American families and to punish children by this bill. That will be why, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members to vote against the rule and recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, I believe, that a House divided cannot stand. Certainly this particular legislation is very divisive, and we should not support the rule.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize that the Black Coaches Association will honor Indiana University's Head Coach Mike Davis as the ``Male Coach of the Year'' during their national convention to be held in Indianapolis this weekend. Mr. Speaker, my heartfelt and enthusiastic congratulation is extended to Coach Mike Davis and the Indiana University Basketball Team for their achievements in this year's NCAA Final Four Tournament. Coach Davis started his coaching career as Alabama's assistant basketball coach in 1995, and remained with the program until 1997. In 1997 Coach Davis became an assistant coach for the Indiana University basketball program. On September 10th, 2000, Coach Davis became the interim men's basketball coach at Indiana University. With only a month to prepare for the 2000-2001 season Davis led the Hoosiers to a 21-13 record, a runner-up finish in the Big Ten Tournament and an at-large bid to the NCAA tournament. Displaying leadership, unwavering faith, and heart throughout the 2001-2002 season, Coach Davis led the Indiana Hoosier's to their first NCAA Final-Four appearance since 1993, narrowly missing the championship. Coach Davis makes it no secret that he is a religious man; in fact the Christian faith permeates his entire life including basketball. The Indiana University basketball team has voluntary chapel each week at Eastern Star Church in my district where Coach Davis is a member. Coach Davis believes unto whom much is given much is required. He is a cheerful and generous philanthropist. For example, Coach Davis donated to non-profit organizations the bonus he received for leading Indiana to the Final Four. His gifts helped to enrich the lives of many. Coach Mike Davis and Indiana University are to be congratulated for reminding Hoosiers and basketball fans everywhere that leadership, faith, and determination are products of achievement. Mr. Speaker, to Coach Davis, keep up the good work and congratulations on your award and great season! Your spirit has enriched the lives of countless individuals, especially the young people.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the Chair recognizing me as a young lady. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Mother's Day this Sunday, May 12, a day celebrated in the United States and many countries around the world to celebrate motherhood and express appreciation of our mothers. Our Founding Father, George Washington, once said: ``My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education that I received from her.'' The first celebration honoring mothers dates back to ancient Greece where spring celebrations were held in honor of Rhea, the mother of the gods. During the 1600s, England honored mothers by celebrating the day called Mothering Sunday on the fourth Sunday of Lent, and it was in 1872 that the United States was introduced to the idea of Mother's Day by Julia Ward Howe, a lyricist of the ``Battle Hymn of the Republic,'' with the intention of Mother's Day being dedicated to peace. Thirty-five years later, in 1907, a campaign led by Anna Jarvis of Philadelphia led to the establishment of Mother's Day as a national holiday in the United States. On May 8, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed a joint resolution which dedicated the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day to express our appreciation of the love and devotion of our mothers. My own mother, Velma Porter, who is no longer with us in the presence but certainly in my life, in the spirit, has always been my inspiration. She was my teacher, my defender and a continual source of strength and wisdom; and although my mother and I were not blessed with material wealth, I attribute the happiness of my childhood to the enormous strength of my mother and the strength of the community where we live. Today, there are an estimated 35 million mothers in the United States. In today's world, mothers are faced with the challenge of not only raising children alone, but participating as successful equals of their male counterparts in all walks of life. We often hear politicians especially bemoan the fact that there are too many single female heads of household, mothers, who are attempting to raise their children in the proper manner while they provide an economic and educational opportunity for their offspring. We often criticize women, mothers, who have been left to raise their families alone, not through any fault of their own, but through the premature demise of their husbands or through the total abandonment of their husbands and their children's father. According to the AFL-CIO, 72 percent of the women with children younger than 18, 78 percent of women with children between the ages of 6 and 17, and 65 percent of women with children younger than 6 were in the labor force in 1997. Those of us who are affiliated with Christianity, the Protestant religion, recall very vividly how Jesus revered his mother when he was in the middle of dying and had all of the opportunity to concentrate on his dying. He stopped in the middle of it and told John to behold his mother, and from the cross we are reminded of the importance and the love and the strength of our mothers and the kind of moral character that they have conveyed on to us. I would trust that as we go forward with the congressional agenda that we will not invoke pain through policy and through measures on mothers who attempt in every way that they know how to care for their families, both spiritually and economically.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Equal Pay Day. The Equal Pay Act became public law in 1963, making it illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of sex. Yet, almost four decades later, the wage gap among women and men persists. It is appalling that in the year 2002, women across the United States continue to be discriminated against on the basis of gender. Women holding similar jobs with similar education, skills, work experience, job content, still earn less than men. The Census Bureau reports that women earn 27 cents less than men on the dollar. Why would I bring this up, other than it being Equal Pay Day, Mr. Speaker? There has been a lot of commentary here on the floor of the House about welfare and welfare reform, and truly, women want not to draw welfare, but rather to get into the marketplace and be economically self-sufficient. Yet, we find just in Indiana, in a glance at Indiana, that the African American women earn only 67 percent of what men earn, and the earnings among Latino women fall even lower, earning 58 percent of what men earn. Three-quarters of African American women and Latinos work in just three types of employment: sales, clerical, and service and factory jobs, and a majority of those women do not even make enough money to reach the poverty line for a family of four, which is $18,000 in the year 2002. In Indiana, women, older women, women who are Social Security age, are living in poverty because their income, their lifetime income earnings, have decided the amount of their Social Security checks. So the consequence of that is that women are drawing a very minuscule amount of Social Security checks, which propels them into a remaining lifetime of poverty. Thirty-nine years ago, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act. He called it the first step in addressing the unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job. At that time, women earned 58 cents for each dollar earned by a man. So Mr. Speaker, equal pay is not only a woman's issue, it is a family issue. It is beneficial for the entire family. Women often provide a significant amount or all of their family's income, and in many cases, they are the sole wage-earners, struggling to provide their families with the best quality of life they possibly can. It is a shame that they and their families continue to be victims of this unjust discrimination. I thought it was imperative that we call this to the attention of the House of Representatives and to the United States, as well, to suggest that we have, indeed, come a long way since Niagara Falls, but we have a long way to go.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to the future of the State of Indiana. For too long, much of Indiana have been out of sync of the rest of the world. Hoosiers have been languishing under a system where as much as three different time zones are randomly followed in our State. This outdated approach has been allowed to exist without regard to geography or to logic. The result is that we are wasting valuable resources and putting our valuable small businesses and industries at a competitive disadvantage. I want all Hoosiers to have every opportunity and advantage to compete in the global economy. We must put our best efforts towards realizing the great promise of the 21st century. I am working hard on this issue to help us take a step forward in that pursuit. I am introducing a bill which will finally allow Indiana to spring forward. The benefits to all of us are clear in Indiana. Daylight saving time will save Indiana families over $7 million annually in electricity rates alone. It will give a windfall to small and large businesses alike by lifting barriers to competition, improving communication and commerce, and saving millions on improved energy efficiency statewide. For our communities, this will be one more step in preserving our cherished way of life by perfecting our health and safety. By all of Indiana observing daylight saving time, toxic emissions would be reduced by more than 240 million pounds annually. With more daylight, schoolchildren will not have to travel to and from school in the dark. For families, there will be more time for outdoor leisure and recreation after the work day is over. All of this is by simply changing our clocks just twice a year. To give one example, Mr. Speaker, of how this issue affects Hoosiers, let me tell Members what I heard from Tom Williams of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis. He says that there are times when Hoosier borrowers actually pay a higher price to borrow money when Indiana is on Chicago time. This commonly occurs when a loan closing happens at the end of the business day, and the lender wants to use an advance from his bank to fund the loan. If the lender contacts the bank after the market in New York closes, his bank cannot quote a firm price, since it will not know what the price will be the following morning. Thus, the Federal Home Loan Bank must impose a premium on the cost of funds that can amount to as much as $20,000 per $1 million borrowed. That premium could be avoided, he says, if Indianapolis were on eastern standard time year-round. As Hoosiers, we have long prided ourselves on going our own way, being independent, and relying on common sense. I want to thank those dedicated citizens in Indiana who worked hard and long in the spirit of independence and common sense to build a groundswell of support for this initiative. I believe in and belong to this tradition, and that is why my legislation puts the decision in the hands of all of us in Indiana by giving our own Indiana General Assembly the opportunity to decide for ourselves what is best for our future. I want to empower our Hoosiers to do just that: spring Indiana forward, spring Indiana toward greater prosperity and a brighter future.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, historically, domestic violence has been a silent epidemic. According to a recent study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, almost 4 million women are physically abused each year in the United States. In my district alone, domestic violence remains unabated. We had the tragic situation where a young man went to court, was convicted of domestic violence, was allowed to leave the courtroom and go home and prepare himself for prison. Instead, he visited his wife's job and killed her and another day care provider. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in this country, where they are more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant. We need to expand the Call to Protect program, continue funding of VAWA and demand that the Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice become permanent. Ensuring that domestic violence victims receive necessary services to protect themselves and their children is one of the most important things that this legislative body can do while we attempt to sensitize those who are guardians of law, who are sworn to uphold the meaning of the law, will be further sensitized to the violence against women and how it can be abated.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to give special honor to Project Home Safe and their latest firearm safety initiative, although I do it under the shadow of yet another child's death caused by the reckless use of a firearm. Yesterday, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a 4-year-old boy shot and killed an 18-month-old girl with his father's handgun while the two of them were watching a movie. Another young innocent life ended. Congress has refused to enact common-sense legislation to prevent these kinds of senseless acts. As part of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Project Home Safe represents one of the largest and most diverse trade associations in America. Since September last year, Project Home Safe has toured 16 States and visited over 300 communities, distributing hundreds of thousands of firearm safety devices in an effort to improve and preserve the lives of our children. This month, they reached the great State of Indiana. In conjunction with our Lieutenant Governor, the Honorable Joe Kernan, Project HomeSafe launched a 35-day tour of Indiana, during which they will distribute 40,000 gun safety devices across the State. I want to commend the Department of Justice for providing the $5 million grant to enable this kind of activity. From March 1 to April 4, Project HomeSafe will be working with the Indiana State Police to help distribute the trigger locks at Wal-Mart lots and K-Mart lots across the State. Indiana residents can receive a free firearm safety kit that includes a cable-style gun lock and a safety brochure detailing the safe storage of firearms. To reinforce Project HomeSafe's safety messages, the firearms safety tour will travel through Indiana visiting 29 communities, using a 16- foot mobile classroom truck designed to provide safety education at the community level. Indiana residents will be able to pick up their firearms safety kit, watch a safety video, and view a display of the safe storage equipment. A safety tour coordinator will also be available to answer any questions. Indiana's children will be able to visit the mobile classroom and will be encouraged to take the Project HomeSafe Pledge, which is a pledge presented to parents by children to show their commitment to safe firearms. Having already visited Indianapolis and Bloomington, the Project HomeSafe tour will visit many other cities, and I would like to insert those in the Record for the edification of people.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, I rise to commend the six winners of the Rosa Parks Essay Contest held in Indianapolis' Tenth Congressional District conducted by my office in conjunction with the recent movie premier of ``Ride to Freedom, the Rosa Parks Story.'' I challenged the students of the Indianapolis public schools to write essays discussing the difference Rosa Parks made in the world and the difference they can make in their own lives. This competition was opened to students in grades 6 through 12. The six winners received two tickets to attend the movie premier of the ``Ride to Freedom,'' as well as a replication of the Rosa Parks Congressional Gold Medal. The winners were selected by my Congressional Youth Caucus: April Johnson and Ashlee Johnson, Arlington high school; Gabrielle Hayes and Alicia Henderson, both eight grade students at the Sidener Learning Community; Heather Sweigart and Tiffany Thompson, both 7th grade students at John Marshall Middle School. One of the winners wrote, ``Rosa Parks is a leader and fighter for her beliefs,'' and that is what she wants to be. ``We must stand up for what is right, no matter what the cost. In the end we will live safer, longer, and better . . .'' Mr. Speaker, I include copies of the essays by the winners for the Congressional Record. The essays referred to are as follows: (By Tiffany Thompson) Rosa Parks was born in 1913, grew up in Montgomery, Alabama, where racism, segregation, and insults were a daily part of her life. She didn't care so she did it in her own way. For example, she would take the stairs instead of the elevators marked ``color'' elevators. Rosa grew up in a bad environment that is probably why it became more active in the civil rights movement. Rosa graduated from Alabama State College, and she worked as a housekeeper. On December 1, 1955 after a long day at work pressing shirts, Parks was too tired to go all the way to the back so she sat in the section where blacks weren't supposed to sit but if a white person wasn't there they could. Parks and three other black women were sitting in the same section. When a white person got on the bus the three women went to the back but Rosa refused because she was too tired of work and racism. Then the Montgomery Boycott started. After refusing to move, Parks was arrested. She could have just paid a fine instead she chose to fight for her rights as well as others, and with the support of her family, she won, she took a stand that America will never forget. What I am doing to help the community, first of all, at church we are donating shoes, clothes, food, and other things to the shelters and poor people. Second, we are giving money to help the people in New York, who don't have homes and have lost family members. Last, we are helping the community by all the kids who need help and who need families. In conclusion, this is how me and my church are helping the community.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great sorrow and with much horror about the vicious killing of Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, in Pakistan. A gentleman and a premier journalist, he enriched the lives of many, including people in my own hometown of Indianapolis during the summer of 1985, where he worked as an intern for the Indianapolis Star. It was in Indianapolis that Mr. Pearl launched his career in journalism and discovered his passion for reporting. As a reporter, he always knew his job could sometimes put his life in jeopardy, but as the Indianapolis Star wrote so eloquently, David's death in the line of duty brings home the lesson taught by the Ernie Pyles of our history, that journalism, when taken to the heart of human conflict, can be the most honorable of vocations and among the most dangerous. The pain of his untimely death transcends our borders. He will be missed by caring people universally. My heartfelt sorrow and prayers go to his child yet to be born, his wife, his family and his friends, and certainly all of us who knew him.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office planning to do some work before I drive back to Indianapolis, and saw this very special man was being praised today, a man who is worthy of praise, a hero who has earned his medal of honor, if you will. David Bonior knew Julia Carson before Julia Carson knew David Bonior. When I first declared my candidacy for this august body, he was one of the first people who obviously believed that I was going to get elected and came out to Indiana to do what he could with his resources and his brain power. Even beyond that, David Bonior has struck me as the perfect illustration of family values. A lot of us get up to the microphone, and we tap dance about family values and we waive the flag and my country tis of Thee and God bless America. But David Bonior has never missed the mark in terms of what is great and good and right for the American family and the United States of America. He is a gentleman's gentleman, he is a politician's politician, he is a family man par excellence. I do not want to look at him because I am going to cry, but I love David Bonior and I want to tell you that.

Ms. CARSON of Indiana

Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the honorable chairman, and certainly the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, for doing a yeoman's job in behalf of those who are certainly deserving of congressional attention and support today bringing forth H.R. 3423, the Arlington National Cemetery bill. Captain Burlingame, a former Navy pilot and reservist, served his time well on behalf of these United States. This legislation, like the Constitution when it was written, was amended on several occasions, once we realized as a Nation that something was awry and needed to be addressed. Such is the same case with the Arlington National Cemetery, which received its designation on June 15, 1864, as a military cemetery to hold the Civil War dead. Subsequent to that, Madam Speaker, there have been others who were not a part of the Civil War who have been allowed to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. This particular legislation, I would trust, as we give homage to Mr. Burlingame, and certainly embrace the family that he so tragically and suddenly left behind, to his widow and to his children, a special commendation would be in order here on behalf of Captain Burlingame. That is why we believe that it is imperative that we modify the age requirement for those whose remains rest at Arlington Cemetery. And I would encourage those of us who are still blessed to have an opportunity to speak here today would be enthusiastically supportive of this measure and to reiterate our strong prayers and sympathy for the family that Captain Burlingame left behind. While we cannot remove the pain and the horror that emitted from September 11, this is one act that we can at least do as Members of Congress to ensure the rightful placement of Captain Burlingame's remains in the Arlington National Cemetery. Madam Speaker, I encourage unanimous support of this measure and also commend the ranking member for his successful amendment in terms of a monument at Arlington National Cemetery in recognition of all of those who prematurely lost their lives on September 11.