Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and which was defeated by a vote of 65 to 359. The arguments against this amendment are the same, and unfortunately the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this amendment was offered. I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting additional investment in our Nation's ports and harbor infrastructure, but I do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal. Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the services they provide, as provided by section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and decisions of the Supreme Court. These fees can be used for services provided, and the construction, and operation and maintenance of, or emergency response services for navigation projects for a harbor. The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available for ports and States to use for any infrastructure project, including infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor, if the project is for transportation to, from, or through the harbor. This could be any road, rail, or even airport project associated with the harbor. It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway system. This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized cargo as a simple source of revenue, in effect, a hidden tax to finance any and all transportation modes. While I support the efforts of our Nation's port facilities to provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and rail systems that move goods to their final destinations, I believe that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation modes. In addition, this amendment is described as a way to pay for much- needed security enhancements at our Nation's ports. However, in effect, the revenue raised by this amendment would be limited to only those in conjunction with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure, and would cease to exist once these projects were complete. It would not provide a long-term solution to reducing the vulnerability of our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). This amendment is a bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was considered at markup time. The manager's amendment also contains a few new items, including the contingent authorization of five additional large-scale projects, provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed by the end of 2005. These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa; a project of navigation for the Port Iberia, Louisiana; a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Union Beach, New Jersey; a project for environmental restoration along the Hocking River, Ohio; and a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Pawley's Island, South Carolina. Among the additional new items in the manager's amendment are authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection projects in New York State, the authorization of a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana, three additional Corps of Engineers' studies, and the authorization for the corps to participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz.)

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I agree to work with this change in conference. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar.)

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our chairman and ranking member, and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly. Today, we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5 years, to enact a Water Resources Development Act. I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program. It is critical to maintain a 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps projects. A biennial cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the workings of the Corps program, often in response to changing circumstances. H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil works program. It includes major flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and other water resources projects. This legislation represents roughly 5\1/2\ years of project requests and modifications, as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers carries out its business. As in the past, projects included in this bill were included not on the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be. Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld solely for partisan reasons. Again, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for working with me and with individual Members on both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects like this, the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions worsen. I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who cannot be here because he is attending the funeral of his mother-in-law, but he certainly has interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues. I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues vote in favor of final passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my distinguished colleagues and pay tribute to my good friend, J.J. Pickle. Those of us who have the tremendous honor of serving in this great institution sometimes fail to see the giants that serve among us. Certainly J.J. Pickle was one of those giants. He was a man who gave his heart, literally, to this country. He poured hours after hours into trying to grapple with the important issues we faced as a Nation, and he did it because he loved this country. He was truly a public servant who cared about the people in the State of Texas, and cared about the people in this great country. It is rare that we see people in this institution who worked as hard as J.J. Pickle. However, in doing so, he was always able to retain his touch of the common man. As much as he accomplished academically and through the higher ranks of government in this country, he never lost the ability to relate to people on a day-to-day level. To me he will always be Jake, the fellow who would put his arm around you, smile and joke, and ask how things were going. He was a man who cared about you as an individual and I cared about people. He loved high-powered debates with intellectuals, but he never put on airs. He was one of only seven southern representatives to vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act legislation. He believed that his most significant accomplishment as a lawmaker was the 1983 Social Security reform bill, which he helped pass as chairman of the Social Security subcommittee. That legislation eased Social Security's financial problems by raising the age for full benefits from 65 to 67 in the year 2000. He could talk to farmers and mechanics as easily as Presidents such as from his mentor, President Johnson and other leaders. It is no wonder the voters of Central Texas kept Jake in Congress for 31 years. They knew a good man when they saw him. They, and all Americans, have lost someone very special. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to recognize J.J. Pickle, a man whose spirit and involvement has made a lasting mark on Texas and this Nation.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the Mexican Government for their decision to issue the Memin Pinguin stamp. This stamp represents the negative stereotypes and oppression that millions of African Americans have spent so many years fighting against. President Fox stated that this is an internal issue for Mexico and that Americans cannot understand the cultural representation of this character. However, if this is how President Fox chooses to depict the black population, this is a sad commentary for Mexico. This is the first black representative to be on a Mexican stamp; and instead of selecting an actual black Mexican that has had historical impact in that country, Mexico chose a cartoon character that's an offensive stereotype. This move is especially disappointing based on the commitment President Fox has given to anti-discrimination. This stamp is the type of depiction that sets back that movement and perpetuates racial biases that many Mexicans deal with daily. I cannot see how this positively benefits any black Mexican. The U.S. and Mexico must work together to create mutually beneficial policies. I'm afraid that this stamp may set us back in creating an open dialogue between our two nations. While we are separate countries our paths are intertwined. This stamp is not only insulting to African Americans, but to all Americans who find this type of representation abhorrent. In the name of diplomatic relations, I respectfully ask President Fox to reconsider his decision to distribute these stamps.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Brown-Menendez- Rahall amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track. This amendment would strike current bill language that eliminates 15 long-distance trains and three shorter-distance routes, some of which provide essential transportation services to rural areas. In the State of Texas, Amtrak operates one short-distance train, the Heartland Flyer, and two long-distance, the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle, which services my district. H.R. 3058 eliminates Texas' only two long-distance routes. The elimination of these routes would have an adverse effect on Texas communities that depend on these routes and leave hardworking Texans, which depend on the $11 million in wages that Amtrak currently provides, unemployed. I am fully aware that the money is very tight. We have a war to finance, and we have big tax cuts for some. But let us do something for the heartland of the USA. Further, in certain rural parts of the State, these lines are often the only transportation alternatives to automobiles. The State of Texas is experiencing unprecedented population growth. The growth is placing enormous strain on the State's highway capacity. And all of us know where that bill is for the last 2 years. As the construction of new highways becomes less practical, the need for a comprehensive passenger rail system will continue to grow. Passenger rail is a component of this Nation's economic and transportation backbone. Bankrupting and gutting our national passenger rail system is not the way to go. I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail passenger system and urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the LaTourette- Oberstar amendment aimed at keeping Amtrak on track. This amendment restores funding for Amtrak to $1.176 billion, an increase of $626 million. This funding will save Amtrak from bankruptcy and allow the railroad to continue to operate in a safe and reliable manner. No passenger railroad system in the world operates without some form of public subsidy. Yet, unfortunately, the bill before us would essentially end this country's passenger rail system as we know it. Countries with well-developed passenger rail networks but much smaller populations such as Germany and Japan invest $3 to $4 billion annually on passenger rail, representing over twenty percent of their total transportation spending. At five hundred and fifty million dollars, Amtrak would be forced to shutdown all operations, causing unnecessary disruption and hardship on millions of Americans that depend on this alternative mode of transportation. Local economies and businesses that have benefited from Amtrak's service would also suffer. Amtrak's twenty thousand workers would be out on the streets looking for new jobs. Last year Amtrak provided over eleven million dollars in wages for good paying jobs for Texas residents. Bankruptcy is not the solution for Amtrak. The American people want and deserve a national passenger rail system. All transportation is subsidized by American taxpayers. Singling out Amtrak assumes wrongfully that taxpayers do want to invest in passenger rail and this just plain wrong. Polls consistently show that Americans support federal funding for a national rail passenger system. I urge my colleagues to renew this body's support for a national rail passenger system and vote yes on this amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for their good work on this bill in the midst of an extremely tight budget environment. Both gentlemen have had to make some very unpopular decisions. However, eliminating funding for a proven, results-oriented program like the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative is one I, along with my colleagues from California and Massachusetts, feel strongly should be reconsidered. When cities redevelop brownfields, they boost their tax base, spawn job creation, spur neighborhood revitalization and provide environmental protection. Unfortunately, H.R. 3058 eliminates funding for the continued cleanup and redevelopment of urban brownfield sites for which $24 million was provided last year when no funds were requested. This amendment represents a renewed pledge to communities across the country signaling this body's commitment to creating and sustaining viable communities. This amendment increases grants available under the Community Development fund with the intent that this increase would be directed toward brownfields redevelopment activities. The increase is offset by reducing the IRS information systems and telecommunications support program by $24 million. This account is $29 million above last year's appropriation and $16 million more than the President's budget requested. The assessment and cleanup of brownfields are critical to the economic and environmental health of communities across the Nation. Within the city of Dallas, a Federal investment of less than $2 million has leveraged more than $370 million in private investment and created or helped retain close to 3,000 permanent, full-time jobs. Over 1,600 units of housing, including 134 units of affordable housing, have been developed on former brownfields sites. The program has brought new vitality to long-distressed portions of the city, boosting the tax base, and bringing important economic opportunities to many neighborhoods. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are well over 500,000 brownfields across the country. Brownfields affect cities of all sizes and represent lost opportunity wherever they exist. Yet, in spite of this fact, the National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment produced by the U.S. Conference of Mayors cites the lack of funds as the biggest impediment to meaningful brownfields redevelopment. I am aware of the argument that the expanded authority of EPA to handle brownfields precipitated the current cut in HUD's the brownfields account. EPA's guidelines are much more restrictive. However, in my respectful view, that flexibility for our Nation's communities to utilize more than one funding source should not be eliminated. Further, many communities across the country already have existing relationships with their local HUD offices. I urge my colleagues to renew this body's pledge to American communities and urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I thank my colleagues for this partnership opportunity.