Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment, and I offer just a little story. Because I heard the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) mention the solution to our problem.
We just passed a very helpful and needed amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that acknowledged America's commitment to long-distance rail. But then we have a slight problem. As we have supported his amendment, we have a sea of red that indicates that America will be disconnected.
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you a little story. I have traveled on rail, heavy rail in the early stages of my life as a little girl. Not only was I not in the luxury seats, I was in the back of the train or the train designated for one group of people. In addition, I brought my own bag of food. Now, I might say that I enjoyed that delicious food that was given to me by my grandmother. But when it comes to saving our rail system, I believe we might just go back to eliminating the luxury but providing for the practical. My condition was a predicament of this society, segregation. But yet, now that we have a full and open society, we need to be able to continue a full and open transportation system. Although it notes that Texas may be included in the rail system, all of the red suggests that we will not be connected because of the cuts in the rail system.
So this amendment will eliminate a provision in the bill that prohibits Amtrak from using funds to operates all 15 of the railroad long-distance trains, some of which provide essential service to rural area and three short-distance trains. The amendment will eliminate the provision that prohibits Amtrak from using the funds to operate these particular long-distance trains. How can you have a system that eliminates all of these connecting aspects of our rail system? That is the benefit of rail. That gives us, the consumer, the choice: driving, bus service, flying, or, yes, the train service.
And if I might add to the esthetics of train travel, how many families have testified to the value of traveling together as a family along America's highways and byways, seeing America through the eyes of a train?
By yet there is more to the train service because some of our rural communities and smaller cities do not have access to any kind of interstate travel except for train travel. They do not have close enough airports. They may not have bus service. They may not have access to automobiles. And with the fuel prices, I will assure that you there will be many who will fall into this category.
The Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment is a good commonsense amendment. It plays right into the hands of the LaTourette amendment, the funding; but it also says that it is important to serve America. Why not cut the luxury service? Why not encourage families to bring their own home-cooked meals? Whatever the choice may be, bag lunches, however it is. But I would assure you that most Americans would rather have the kind of travel that is necessary for them to move about this Nation than some hot-cooked meal on a train that does not come to their doorstop.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Texas will be mighty lonely. Even though it may be one of those States that has the service, we are disconnected because the routes going through our State will be disconnected and we will have no way of connecting to the rest of America. Support this amendment and give back to America its ability to travel.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KENNEDY OF MINNESOTA
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot attribute good intentions to my good friend. I do not know his heart. And certainly there are homeless Americans, and the numbers are growing. Unemployment in America is soaring. The money spent for the war is ongoing. And when we begin to look at the landscape, more and more Americans are unemployment and underemployed. Forty-four million Americans are uninsured.
But here is what you call borrowing from a poor Peter to pay a devastated Paul. Homelessness in America needs its own special attention. In fact, I wish we were not under a massive budget cut, the low ebbing, if you will, of funding America's greatest needs.
I would hope the gentleman would join me and the colleagues that have spoken and really address the questions of homelessness. I would venture to say we can almost spend a billion dollars to provide housing for Americans.
But when it comes to taking money from an already crippled system that really assists the poorest of Americans many times in getting from place to place, we are not gaining, we are only losing.
In the midst of this fight and debate, there are many cities who are fighting for more light rail dollars. The city of Houston has been to be one. We are being frustrated by the new formulas that have been generated only because we do not have the money. I want to see the system in Washington, D.C., get the billions-plus they need for their light rail system, but because of the fact that we are out of money, cities and rural areas across America in fact are suffering in terms of expanding and growing their light rail system with artificial capping and victimizing those citizens who are needing service.
We are in a battle right now to get rail to minority communities in Houston that were promised it, and they are not able to get it right now because of formula cuts.
I would like to be able to take that money out of Amtrak and provide for light rail. I hope we will find a way to solve our problem, but in the sense of collegiality or recognizing that we have a crisis, I know we cannot cripple Amtrak any further.
I hope, my good friend, as they say, we will lock arms together and fight the problem of homelessness. I hope you will join us by adding dollars to the section 8 underfunded allotment that we have. I hope the gentleman will join in adding dollars for emergency home repair for senior citizens who live in dilapidated housing all over America.
But we cannot afford to take $100 million from someone who is crippled, as Amtrak is, and stifle transportation across America; and then, if you will, give money to a poor Paul, and that is for the homeless.
We want a collective, comprehensive effort that will really attack the question of homelessness. Might I say that homelessness also goes to societal concerns: Addiction, unemployment, lack of education. It just does not get solved with $100 million for those who are homeless and veterans who are suffering.
So I think this amendment bears consideration only because I do not judge the gentleman's heart, but we should oppose it because we need a more comprehensive response, and we cannot undermine an already broken system of heavy rail that people are needing to survive. And for those of us who are still fighting for light rail, we certainly need a lifeline. And obviously, we all need an infusion of dollars to provide for a comprehensive solution. I hope we will work together for that. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov
Source