John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of our Republican colleagues' energy mantra these days is ``Drill Now, Drill Anywhere'' to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and to bring gasoline prices now. ``Drill now, drill anywhere'' works more like a concrete boot than a cornerstone. In the interest of America's national security, that is just about the worst policy we could adopt. According to our Geological Survey and our Minerals Management Survey, our total oil reserves both on land and offshore would only last 15 to 20 years at the rate America consumes oil today, which is 8 billion barrels a year and still rising. What exactly would America do in 15 to 20 years when all of our oil is used up and the only remaining sources of oil are controlled by some of the most undemocratic oil dictatorships around the world? Think about it, America, before it's too late.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, high gas prices are taking a huge toll. Republicans claim they want to reduce gas prices, but for a month they have voted against every bill that would do so. Last week, Republicans blocked a bill to release 70 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Much smaller releases by the last three Presidents have produced nearly immediate reductions in crude oil prices of up to one-third. That would translate to savings as high as $1 per gallon of gas. The Republican plan to lease more public land without requiring Big Oil to actually drill and produce oil gives exactly zero savings now. Today, they will have a chance to vote against the speculation in oil futures. Experts have testified that rampant speculation accounts for roughly $30 of the price of a barrel of oil, or 70 cents per gallon of gas. Isn't it time Republicans voted for 70 cent savings on gas prices by stopping speculation and $1 savings by opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve now?

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, while Americans pump billions of dollars into their gas tanks every week, Big Oil has just completed another quarter of record-breaking profits. The companies claim they are looking for new oil to bring down the price at the pump, but what they spend on exploration is small compared with their stock buybacks and shareholder dividends. That's great for their investors, but no help for millions of Americans who drive to work every day. Come to think of it, why would they bring to market the 4 million already leased and easily developable acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, only to have their profits plunge while trying to reduce gas prices? Last week, Democrats in Congress supported legislation to increase domestic oil production by requiring oil companies to drill on leases they control or lose those leases to companies that would drill. The Republicans once again voted no. Republicans won't require oil companies to drill, but they have no problem handing them more leases to hoard while gas pump prices and oil company profits soar.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, to significantly lower gas prices at the pump, Congress must end rampant speculation in crude oil futures, yet our Republican colleagues in both branches have consistently opposed such legislation. Meanwhile, a whole new crisis looms as families face a price approaching $5 per gallon for heating oil for their homes. That's twice last winter's price. Last winter in Massachusetts and New England alone, 350,000 low- income families used the LIHEAP program to get by, yet only one in four of the families eligible by income use the program. Many of those already eligible families will be in desperate need of help this winter, and many more middle-income families' budgets will be severely stressed by the doubled price of home heating oil. Heat for a home or an apartment is not optional for any family, and Congress must act on an historic investment in LIHEAP before we finish our session.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, as we commemorate the 13th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, perpetrated by nationalist Serb forces predominantly against Bosniaks, Bosnian Muslims, it is time to pay tribute to the tragic episodes not only in Srebrenica, but also in other less-known places in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the spring of 1992, a deliberate, centrally planned, and well- organized campaign of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, rape, torture, and intimidation terrorized the civilian population throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and took the lives of 200,000 men, women, and children. Out of those, 8,000 perished in Srebrenica alone during a period of less than five days in July of 1995. In the end, 2 million Bosnians were displaced from their homes, and the country's rich cultural and religious heritage and monuments were deliberately destroyed. Shattered state institutions remain dysfunctional from the chaos and are struggling to cope with the significant loss of Bosnia's population. Today, survivors are battling post-traumatic stress disorder, orphans are still searching for their parents' remains, and new mass graves continue to be discovered. The entire western Balkans region has still not fully recovered from the violent break-up of Yugoslavia. The human tragedy that befell Bosnia and its citizens in places less known such as Bihac, Zepa, Gorazde, and Visegrad needs to be revisited and marked in its proper place in the memory of human experience and history. If the international community had possessed the will to protect the UN-designated ``safe haven'' of Srebrenica, it would have prevented the tragic outcome and thousands of innocent lives would have been with us here today. The world had said ``never again'' to genocide, only to abandon the people of Bosnia to an unspeakable nightmare. Today, let us remind ourselves of the consequences: Srebrenica was the worst single atrocity in Europe after World War II. We cannot pretend that Bosnia's struggles are simply in the past, nor that the country has fully stabilized. The people of Bosnia are still trying to rebuild their country, to reform the institutions that were responsible for the genocide, and to move beyond ethno-territorial divisions into a functional democratic state. As we mark July 11th, we must always remember the innocent people who lost their lives while the international community failed to act. We must acknowledge that justice will prevail only when General Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are apprehended, and we must never forget the horrors that befell the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I just want to say that we have a very severe problem in this country on our energy supplies. In the short term, there are a series of ways that we might save ourselves some money on the gas prices, and those ways include driving less, driving slower, carpooling, and using public transportation where it is available. And I have to commend the chairman for bringing so quickly to the floor this important legislation, which provides a substantial increase in moneys, authorization, at least, for public transportation, which is already in place in our smaller metropolitan areas and even in our rural areas, so that we can enhance the public transportation available for people--what is already available--and take care of people who are making that move toward using a bit more public transportation. In the longer term, which is speaking about the 10-year kind of time frame, whereas the short term is in the first year or so, in the longer term, living closer to where we work so you don't have to commute so far, doing the research and development on renewable energy sources, drilling wherever it's open for leases, and I say that's in the longer term because everybody agrees that it will take, even in the best of circumstances, 5 years to bring new leased areas to production and more likely 10 years to bring those new leased areas to production, that and changing over our whole vehicle fleet, our whole vehicle fleet, which will take a considerable period of time, to using much more fuel- efficient vehicles, those are the longer-term ways that we can get out of this problem. And by far the fastest way to immediately have an effect is the elimination of speculation. There has been much testimony before our committees that speculation is a very significant portion of what is going on right now. The speculative activity in the oil market has quadrupled in just the last few months, 3 or 4 months, and that would be the fastest and most effective way. My friend the ranking member from Florida has pointed out that we need to increase supply. Well, yes, it would be possible to increase supply. But remember, as the majority leader said here a few minutes ago, we in America have 5 percent, somewhat less than 5 percent, of the planet's population. We are now consuming 25 percent of the oil produced on this planet today, and we in America have only 3 percent of the reserves. You can't drill your way out of this problem because we do not have the reserves.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of the Bush-McCain plan to lower gas prices is to open every acre of the Outer Continental Shelf between 50 and 200 miles offshore to oil leasing, drilling and production. That plan is a surefire failure. You can bet your house and your children's college education as well that the most promising areas would be leased for long terms at bargain prices, but there is no guarantee that those new leases would be producing a drop of oil even 10 years from now. That's been the history. The Minerals Management Service estimates 66 billion barrels of oil are recoverable on already-leasable areas of the continental shelf. Sixty-six billion barrels equals 10 years of America's need without any foreign oil at all. Yet less than a quarter of the area actually leased is in production. The oil companies are simply banking their cheap, long-term leases for future higher prices and profits. And we, the Congress and the country, will really be left over the barrel.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, we are witnessing the mother of all oil and gas power plays in this country. Big Oil and their allies are desperately trying to open every possible site for oil drilling before the Texas oil men, Bush and Cheney, leave the White House in January. Under the Bush-Cheney-McCain plan, were it to become law, every acre of the Outer Continental Shelf, 50 to 200 miles offshore, and all of our coastline would be open to leasing and drilling. You can bet your home that the most promising areas for oil production would be fully leased at the foolish, long-term, low-price policy now in effect, but that's all. There's no certainty that the newly leased areas would be producing a drop of oil 10 years out. Big Oil could simply bank their cheap long-term leases until the price of oil reaches $200 or even $500 per barrel. And we, the Congress and country, would be over the barrel. That, after all, has been the history. The claim has been made that opening the Outer Continental Shelf would unlock 86 billion barrels of known estimated reserves. Eighty-six billion barrels, by the way, would provide a dozen years of America's oil without using any foreign oil at all, but our Minerals Management Service estimates that 80 percent of those reserves lie in areas already open for leasing and for drilling. So the big oil companies have already leased large areas that have the greatest potential for high production, and yet they're producing on less than one quarter of the already leased acreage. Ironically, that may be the best policy for the U.S. because America's problem is huge. Our less than 5 percent of the planet's population consumes almost 25 percent of the oil produced in the world. We are so dependent on oil that we have limited leverage to reduce demand, but we have only 3 percent of the known oil reserves on the planet, and therefore, have very little leverage to increase the supply. Because exploration has been more thorough and extensive on our land and in our sovereign waters, the oil yet to be discovered on this planet lies not just predominantly but overwhelmingly beyond U.S. sovereignty. The Bush-McCain solution is doomed to failure because, first, opening more land and waters to leasing will not necessarily lead to production. Second, even if it did, the production under the best circumstances of shallow waters and of easy drilling and infrastructure in place would take 5 and, more typically, 10 years to produce. Third, if we were foolish enough to pursue that policy, we would use all of our oil, economically recoverable, in about 20 years and would be totally at the mercy of unfriendly oil producers. For America, the only certain solution to the high price of gasoline is to reduce the consumption of gasoline. Many of the big ways to do that require time to achieve, things like developing and switching to renewable energy, the research and development of fuel cell vehicles, living closer to work, building more extensive public transportation systems, replacing the whole vehicle fleet--both cars and trucks--with high fuel efficiency vehicles. There are immediate ways we can cut the speculation now. We can drive slower. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can use public transportation when it's possible. We can develop ``work from home'' wherever and whenever that's feasible as an option, and we need to start doing all of those immediate ways immediately.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today that the House of Representatives is considering House Resolution 1050, which honors the city of Pittsfield for its rich baseball history. As a sponsor of this legislation, I would like to thank the Committee on Education and Labor, especially the gentleman from California Chairman George Miller for his assistance in bringing this resolution to the floor. Pittsfield, Massachusetts, can trace its baseball roots all the way back to 1791. The city, which was only the town of Pittsfield then, was in the middle of constructing a new meeting house. Trying to protect the windows of this new building, the town enacted a bylaw that banned the playing of ``baseball'' within 80 yards of it. You see, even back in 1791, youths were already breaking windows playing America's favorite national pastime. With that, the first mention of baseball was penned into history. Madam Speaker, besides being home to the earliest known reference to baseball, this resolution also honors the city for being designated the Birthplace of College Baseball by the College Baseball Hall of Fame. On July 1, 1859, the city hosted one of the Nation's oldest collegiate rivalries, Williams College versus Amherst College, in the first collegiate baseball game to be played in the Nation. Now this game was played under the old ``Massachusetts'' rules. No gloves were used, the ball was pitched under hand, only one out was necessary, and a foul ball, if uncaught, was considered a hit. The record shows that Amherst College won this first contest by a score of 73-32. Pittsfield is also the site of many other historical baseball moments. Among others, this resolution honors the city for being the birthplace of Ulysses F. Grant, born in 1865, who's generally considered to be the best African American player of the 19th century, as well as Mark Belanger, born in 1944, who spent most of his career playing for the Baltimore Orioles. In 1924, Lou Gehrig made his professional debut at Wahconah Park, the venerable ballbark in Pittsfield that is listed on the National Historic Register, and in that debut he appropriately hit a home run into the Housatonic River. Jim Thorpe, considered one of the most versatile athletes in modern sports, also played there. In recognition of its baseball past, the city of Pittsfield plans to erect three permanent monuments, Bat, Ball, and Glove, representing the virtues of the game. Overall, Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the city of Pittsfield for its rich baseball history and I am honored to stand on the floor today to honor its significance to our national pastime. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, Madam Speaker.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize CAPT Amy C. Barkin, who is retiring from the United States Public Health Service after a distinguished 30 year career. Her unique contributions as a nationally recognized clinician, public health expert, and skilled administrator have had a profound impact on health care in this country. During her career, she made numerous contributions to the State of Massachusetts. CAPT Barkin planned and implemented three health care programs for retarded and mentally ill patients in state facilities in western Massachusetts (Belchertown, Monson and Northampton State Hospitals), using resources gained at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. She established on-site specialty health care clinics, recruited on-site medical, health, and support staff and brought health care to a disenfranchised population. Additionally, she designed and opened a 25-bed inpatient psychiatric unit at the then new University of Massachusetts Medical Center. CAPT Barkin worked with community mental health centers in Massachusetts and New England. She introduced the concept of mental health to Boston's Italian speaking community of the North End and drafted a grant for mental health center funding. As the only bilingual clinical counselor at the time, CAPT Barkin designed and implemented a program that would be accepted by the residents. The mental health program, located in Boston's North End Health Center, has been in operation for over 30 years and plays a vital role in the community. The State of Massachusetts is particularly indebted to CAPT Barkin for her focus on teenage alcohol abuse prevention and drunk driving that resulted in the increased delivery of comprehensive, coordinated substance abuse care in Massachusetts and other New England states. Please join me in congratulating CAPT Amy Barkin on her retirement after a 30 year career with the United States Public Health Service. Her focus on access to alcohol, drug abuse, mental health and primary health care services is commendable and laudable and although she is retiring, her legacy will continue to make the Nation a healthier and safer place.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1077 calling on the Peoples' Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and engage in substantive dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. For nearly six decades, China has pursued a deliberate policy of cultural, religious, linguistic, and economic repression against the people of Tibet. Last month on the 49th anniversary of a historic uprising against Chinese rule, Tibetan monks began a series of protests which widened into large-scale and often violent clashes between protesters and Chinese authorities. These protests were the largest since 1989, when Chinese authorities imposed martial law in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, following mass antigovernment protests. Since 1950, the history of Tibet--then an autonomous region inhabited by fewer than 3 million overwhelmingly ethnic Tibetans--has been characterized by harsh religious persecution and political repression. The Chinese government has been systematically eradicating the unique cultural and religious heritage of Tibet. In 2006, the Department of State Human Rights Report named China as one of ``the most systematic violators of human rights'' in part due to its repressive actions in Tibet. In 2007, that same report documented discriminatory Chinese government policies that provide economic benefits to Han Chinese migrants willing to relocate to Tibet. While Tibetans maintain their majority in rural areas, cities such as Lhasa have seen hundreds of thousands of migrant workers lured by economic incentives and the construction of a new railroad, This influx of ethnically Han Chinese has spurred fears among many Tibetans, who have almost no political voice, that the government is engaging in a deliberate campaign to bludgeon their cultural and religious heritage. By suppressing the religious and political rights of Tibetans and by repeatedly denying access to journalists and human rights observers, China has demonstrated a negligent disregard for the rights of Tibetans and has unnecessarily repressed a society which embraces nonviolence and seeks political reconciliation rather than armed resistance. It is my belief that President Bush should revoke his decision to attend the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing to protest China's abysmal human rights record in Tibet in addition to its key support for the genocidal government in Sudan. Hosting the Olympic Games is a unique privilege and China's repression of Tibet stands in stark contrast to the ideals behind that august international competition. I join my colleagues today in condemning China's crackdown on nonviolent protesters in Tibet and urge the Chinese government to immediately commence negotiations with the Dalai Lama with the goal of forging a long-term solution that safeguards the unique cultural and religious heritage of the Tibetan people.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina on their recent anniversary of independence which was recognized by the United States on April 7, 1992. 1 am honored that the United States was one of the first nations to recognize the newly independent Bosnia and Herzegovina. I would like to applaud the democratic orientation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and I strongly support the further strengthening of its government and peoples and their respect for human rights, rule of law, and free market economics. As we mark the anniversary of U.S. recognition of an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, let us reaffirm our support for Bosnia's progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration. I once again congratulate the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina on this anniversary of their independence and I look forward to collaboration between our two countries.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the victims of genocide in Bosnia. I would particularly like to draw the attention of this body to the atrocities perpetrated by Serb forces against the Bosniak and Croat populations in eastern Bosnia. Eastern Bosnia became the site of a number of atrocities long before the name Srebrenica became known worldwide. The aggression perpetrated against the newly independent and sovereign Bosnia and the genocide of its Bosniak population took one of its earliest and most vicious forms with the attacks of Serb forces on eastern Bosnia in 1992. The multi-ethnic and multi-religious character of eastern Bosnia was systematically destroyed beginning in April 1992. The historic town of Visegrad epitomizes what happened in eastern Bosnia in 1992. The assault on Visegrad started on April 6, 1992 when Serb military units began shelling Visegrad and several of the nearby Bosnian Muslim villages. With the takeover of Visegrad, Serb forces unleashed a campaign of terror against the Bosniak and Croat population of Visegrad. Every day men, women and children were killed on a famous bridge on the Drina and their bodies were dumped into the river. Many ofthe Bosniak men and women were arrested and detained at various locations in the town. Serb soldiers raped women and inflicted terror on civilians. Looting and destruction of Bosniak and Croat property occurred daily and mosques in Visegrad were destroyed. As the journalist Ed Vulliamy described in The Guardian: ``For centuries, although wars had crisscrossed the Drina, Visegrad has remained a town two-thirds Bosnian Muslim and one-third Bosnian Serb. The communities entwined, few caring who was what. But in the spring of 1992, a hurricane of violence was unleashed by Bosnian Serbs against their Muslim neighbors in Visegrad, with similar attacks along the Drina valley and other parts of Bosnia. Visegrad is one of hundreds of forgotten names . . . As elsewhere, the pogrom was carried out on orders from the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karaszic and his military counterpart General Ratko Mladic, both still wanted for genocide.'' By the end of 1992, the Bosniak and Croat communities in Visegrad were effectively ``cleansed'' through killings and deportations. Some survivors of the initial attacks on eastern Bosnia found their way into the three Bosnian government-held enclaves and United Nations-declared ``safe havens'' of Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde. The tragic fate of these ``safe havens'' is well known. The fate of Visegrad and the pattern of genocidal violence was similar in other eastern Bosnian towns such as Bijeljina, Zvornik and Foca. As we prepare to mark another anniversary of the beginning of genocidal violence in eastern Bosnia and as we prepare to commemorate the 13th anniversary of Srebrenica, let us remember the victims of Visegrad and other Visegrads throughout Bosnia.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess I thought that the problem was that the devil was the Federal Government here and that we wanted to make certain that there was no way for them to issue eminent domain, and the language of this bill, in relation to this trail, is quite clear on that point. In fact, it would appear that now we're trying to solve a problem which isn't there, which just is an order of magnitude somewhere farther away in concept, that somehow the local communities or the State is going to issue eminent domain and then pass the land to the Federal Government in some sort of manner. That really surprises me as there is nothing in the intent of this anywhere along the way to do such a thing. I think we have solved the problem as much as it needs to be solved with the language which is in the bill, that there can be no Federal acquisition of land here. Nobody wants Federal acquisition of land. There might well be community acquisition of a corridor somewhere along the way over time, but there is to be no Federal ownership of any of that land. I hope the matter will be opposed and we will not adopt this amendment. This is finding a solution where there is no problem.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how long my voice will hold out, so I will probably be fairly short. I just want to commend the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Rahall, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Grijalva, and thank them for all of their great work in bringing this bill to the floor. The New England Scenic Trail Designation Act is a product of almost a decade of cooperation between the Massachusetts delegation and the Connecticut delegation, and both delegations have changed over that period of time, the National Park Service, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association and a lot of local communities and individuals. The bill designates major portions of an older, voluntary Metacomet- Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system as a national scenic trail. Now, I have hiked every mile of the old voluntary system through Massachusetts; and while some segments are very well protected, other sections have suffered serious encroachment. National scenic trail designation will provide an opportunity for long-term preservation for future generations. Currently, the MMM trail system is administered by local nonprofit organizations: the Connecticut Forest and Park Association in Connecticut and the Appalachian Mountain Club through its Berkshire Chapter in Massachusetts. The Connecticut Forest and Park Association in fact is a private nonprofit organization which contracts with the State of Connecticut to run the trail systems in all of their public parks, so it is a very reputable organization which has been there for a long time and has a huge number of volunteers who work on it, and it works closely with the State of Connecticut. I want to recognize and thank the many volunteers and staff of these organizations who have worked diligently to help develop this initiative. Because of their effort, every Member through whose district this trail system passes supports this legislation. In the case of Massachusetts, the Appalachian Mountain Club has over time been sort of a sponsor for the trail within Massachusetts, the old voluntary trail, not only this trail but other trails within Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the land passes through at least four substantial State parks or State forests so that much of the land is already publicly owned by the State of Massachusetts, but there are connections between those publicly owned pieces of land and there are visitor centers and park facilities and so on at a rather convenient distance for hiking purposes, for day hikes or overnight camp-type hikes along the way. Now, I understand that some Members have expressed concerns that this bill will infringe upon landowner rights and allow the National Park Service to seize lands through eminent domain. Well, the Federal Government does not own any land anywhere in the area that the trail is intended to go, following the old voluntary trail, and then some additional territory that has to be worked out by the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association in order to reach the Long Island Sound. There is no expectation of there being any Federal land there. It was never intended there would be federally owned land. Whatever protection of the land would be held by the Park Association or on behalf of the State of Connecticut. And in Massachusetts, the same thing is basically true. No one wants to establish Federal ownership of a corridor. In recognition of that, in the legislation we added the language: ``The United States shall not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.'' Yet the argument keeps coming back that that doesn't protect people. Well, maybe the language of the motion to recommit will satisfy that. I think it is completely redundant with what is already there and certainly in total keeping with the intent not to have any Federal ownership of land in that area. The blueprint for the management of the trail specifically states that all existing landowner uses and rights, including hunting, fishing, timber management and other recreational activities, will continue to be at the discretion of the landowners. Throughout the process, protection of private property has been of the utmost concern, and I believe we can accommodate the concerns of all landowners and continue to provide a scenic, protected path for public use as the New England National Scenic Trail. There is wide support for this designation. I would submit for the Record a March 25, 2007, Boston Globe editorial and a letter of support from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles. [From the Boston Globe, March 25, 2007] From Monadnock to the Sound Home to some of the most spectacular sections of the Appalachian Trail, New England could gain a new interstate hiking trail that is closer to the region's population centers. U.S. Representative John Olver of Amherst filed a bill this month to create a New England National Scenic Trail that could one day stretch from Mount Monadnock in New Hampshire to the Long Island Sound at Guilford, CT. For 190 miles of the 220-mile distance, the trail would roughly follow the route through the Connecticut River Valley of the existing Monadnock, Metacomet, and Mattabesett trail system in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The principal addition would be a 14-mile spur from the southern end of the Mattabesett in Connecticut to the shoreline in Guilford. The state of New Hampshire chose not to join Connecticut, Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the feasibility study for the new trail, but Olver's bill would encourage Interior to work with New Hampshire and private and public organizations in that state to include the stretch from Royalton, Mass., to Monadnock's 3,165-foot summit in the national scenic trail. Nationwide, there are already eight such trails, including the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest. Within 10 miles of the new trail live 2 million people. Many already use--and do maintenance work on--the existing stretches. At a time when young people, in particular, need more recreational opportunities to ward off the health problems of obesity, the national scenic trail designation should increase the path's popularity. It should also help protect it from development pressures. Much of the trail is on state forest or park lands near the river valley's farms, forests, tobacco barns, and towns. Monadnock itself has 40 miles of maintained foot trails and is considered to be the second-most-frequently hiked summit in the world, after Japan's Mount Fuji. Three of the Massachusetts peaks on the new trail include Mount Grace, Mount Holyoke, and Mount Tom. The new trail includes a wide range of natural habitats and is close to more than 50 registered village historic districts. Hikers could pass over volcanic, sedimentary, and glacial rock and observe fossils and dinosaur footprints. The goal of planners is that the scenic trail will have a single trail blazing system, but with few through hikers, since overnight camping would be permitted in only a limited number of locations. Of course, decades ago planners of the Appalachian Trail did not envision through hikers for its 2,175-mile length, either. Congress should designate the path as a new national scenic trail and let the walking public decide how best to use it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate first Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, both from the Financial Services Committee, for their great work in bringing forward to the floor this reauthorization bill for the important HOPE VI program. I am a supporter of the manager's amendment, and I want to say a few words from an appropriator's perspective here as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with HUD. In America, we have at least 10 million American families who live below or near the poverty line who are struggling to make ends meet and working largely in minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs and part-time jobs. We appropriate voucher rental assistance for roughly 2\1/2\ million of those families through the tenant and project basis, and they're costly. We also appropriate monies to provide operations for the roughly 600,000 units which are under our public housing authorities all over the country. The HOPE VI program is our only program that allows for total renovation of replacement of family housing units in that group that are under the public housing authorities in cities and towns all over the country. All 10 million of those families dream about better jobs and owning a home, but with incomes so limited, the family budget gets destabilized if there is a job loss or an unanticipated health problem in the family, and they end up being the most vulnerable people for predatory lending practices that have become so obvious in the mortgage disclosure crisis if they are trying to make ends meet and trying to have homeownership. Those are exactly the families that would benefit the most from reduced monthly energy bills, and they are the most in need of that help. Under the bill before us, HOPE VI projects must meet energy saving requirements embodied in the green community criteria established by Enterprise Partners, the American Planning Association, the American Institute of Architects, and the Natural Resource Defense Council, among others, who have put forth a comprehensive set of criteria which include siting of buildings to maximize passive solar heating and cooling, siting near public transportation, using Energy Star highly efficient appliances, using water fixtures that save water and energy. A study of 20 already completed projects using these standards showed an average of 2.4 percent only in construction cost increase, but that cost is recovered within 5 to 7 years by lower monthly energy bills. For the rest of the 50- to 100-year lifetime of the public housing, the moneys, those savings go back to the individual families, and it requires us to appropriate less money to the public housing authority. So it's a very important program.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have high respect for the gentlewoman from West Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee. In fact, I occupy now the apartment that she used before upgrading. But arguments in the builders' letter to Members promoting the amendment are specious and deliberately misleading. First of all, all references to LEED have been removed. Secondly, the letter greatly exaggerates the cost of green community criteria which are so strongly supported by the U.S. Council of Mayors and 40 other major organizations. A well-documented study of some 20 completed projects using these criteria, completed projects using these criteria, showed an average of only 2.4 percent increase in cost. We all need to remember that we build housing for 50 to 100 years. The small increased construction costs produce huge savings in lower monthly bills for energy for tenants. The low-income tenants have all of the remaining 50 years to accrue those savings after the payback comes within the first 5 to 7 years of the program. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, last month at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of the Appropriations Committee we heard expert, corroborated testimony that heating and cooling and the electrical fixtures and appliances in buildings in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors use nearly 50 percent of all the energy that is used in America today and thereby were responsible for nearly 50 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. We were also told that we could reduce by one-half the energy used in new or renovated buildings using present knowledge and technology. One month ago, because of the powerful and insistent leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the critical cooperation of Chairmen Dingell and Markey and a host of others from both parties, this Congress passed and the President signed landmark energy legislation. That new law focused heavily on reducing the fossil fuel used in transportation by raising corporate average fleet efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020 and mandating production of 36 billion gallons of biofuel, mostly ethanol, by the year 2020. But equally important were some provisions relating to buildings, what I have said already, which use nearly 50 percent of all the energy used in America today. First, the increased energy efficiency standards for appliances used in commercial and residential buildings; second, the goal that all commercial buildings built after the year 2025 would use zero net energy; third, that all federally constructed buildings would reduce their general energy usage by 30 percent by the year 2015; and fourth, that all new Federal buildings reduce their fossil fuel- produced energy by 55 percent in 2010 and eliminate by 2030 all fossil fuel-produced energy. Our first opportunity to meet the spirit of this landmark energy bill comes in the bill before us tomorrow, the reauthorization of the Hope VI program. This reauthorization proposes a rejuvenated program at $800 million a year which with just Hope VI dollars alone could produce as many as 4,000 units per year of housing, affordable housing for people with low income. Put in perspective, those potential affordable housing units represent less than 0.1 percent less than 1/1000th of the housing built in this country each year, and virtually all of the cost is borne by the Federal Government. The bill includes an extremely important provision that projects must use green community criteria to be eligible for the Federal funding. Numerous cities and even States already require or use compliance with such green community criteria. Washington, DC, for instance, requires the criteria for all residential construction, not just public construction. Washington State requires criteria stronger than the green community base criteria for all State-funded housing. Maine requires similar criteria for all housing built with public dollars in that State. Cities from coast to coast, such as Cleveland, Ohio, and Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon, have already built Hope VI projects complying with the green community criteria. An assessment of the added costs for construction using such criteria and for some 20 already completed projects shows an average of 2.4 percent increase in construction costs. But we build housing to last for 50 to 100 years. Such projects exceed savings in energy costs that are greater than the construction costs that is slightly higher within about 5 years, and those savings accrue to the low-income families using that housing over the 50- to 100-year lifetime of the housing. The benefits go to the low-income families directly if the families pay their utility bills directly or those benefits go to the public housing authorities if the authority itself pays the utility bill for the housing unit. And those benefits are then passed on to the tenants, and they require less of an appropriation in operating costs by our government to the public housing authorities in the various cities around the country that use this housing. We should not lose this opportunity to meet the spirit of the energy bill, the new energy law, that landmark legislation which we have all touted and so strongly supported. We should use the best green criteria available to promote healthier homes for low-income families and save all of that energy over the long haul.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3074.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 3074. Before I explain the contents of the conference report, however, I would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, Joe Knollenberg, for his great help in crafting a well-balanced Transportation and Housing bill. Joe and I have put together a strong bipartisan bill that will help address the Nation's important transportation and housing needs. I think Joe and I have been a good team and I look forward to working closely with him again next year. I would also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work. On the minority side, Dena Baron and Dave Gibbons and Jeff Goff. And on the majority side, Kate Hallahan, our clerk; Cheryle Tucker; David Napoliello; Laura Hogshead; Alex Gillen; Mark Fedor and Bob Letteney. They performed well under stress and trying circumstances, and without their dedication we would not be here today debating this bill. Mr. Speaker, Members can and should be proud of this bill because it provides critical investments in our Nation's transportation and housing infrastructure, and does so within a fiscally sound manner and within our conference allocation. Unlike some other issues we debate in Congress, transportation and housing have a long history of bipartisanship, and I hope we can continue in that spirit of bipartisanship today. At their core, both transportation and housing have a direct impact on the people we represent. All of us are affected by congestion on our roads, travel delays in our airports, and the lack of dependable public transportation. We also all benefit from community development investments and the availability of affordable housing in our communities. This bill in so many ways affects each and every one of us. Let me briefly explain some of the highlights of the conference report. For the first time in 13 years, our bill includes $75 million for the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program, commonly known as VASH, to provide roughly 10,000 housing vouchers and supportive services to homeless veterans. While we do not know the exact number of homeless veterans, the Veterans Administration has estimated that there were as many as 196,000 during a point-in-time count just last year. Surely we can all agree that 10,000 homeless veterans are 10,000 too many homeless veterans. Even one homeless veteran is a homeless veteran too many. We have also included $30 million for about 4,000 new housing vouchers for the disabled, the first new housing vouchers for the disabled in 5 years. The need for housing for the disabled has been well documented, with average housing rents rising much faster than a disabled person's monthly supplemental security income, SSI. Secondly, the bill provides $250 million to help with the current foreclosure crisis. We have included $200 million over the President's request for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, a recognized national intermediary between lenders and homeowners, to help individuals and families forestall foreclosure and keep their homes. A separate $50 million is provided for HUD's housing counseling program to help new potential home buyers avoid future foreclosures. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the second quarter of this year saw the highest percentage of mortgages go into foreclosure since 1972. Many of those foreclosures and delinquencies are due to the proliferation of subprime and other adjustable-rate loans. With 2 million subprime mortgages expected to reset over the next 18 months, the number of homeowners facing delinquency is staggering in many parts of the country. The funds included in this bill for foreclosure counseling is the first major Federal investment into this growing crisis. The President has stated on a number of occasions that he wants to help solve this problem. If he is serious, he would sign this bill into law and help many tens of thousands of families receive the help they need to manage their finances and the refinancing of their mortgage so they can keep their homes. In addition, the bill also makes significant investment in our transportation infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge tragedy put a national spotlight in the State, on the state of America's transportation infrastructure, especially with the number of lives lost in that tragedy. More than 20,000 out of some 100,000-plus bridges on the national highway system are characterized as ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' Traffic on these bridges is over 190 million trips per day. The conference report includes an additional billion dollars over the President's request for the bridge program as a downpayment to help States fix their long list of substandard bridges; $195 million is specifically included for the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, which alone carried 140,000 passenger vehicles per day. And that sum will make Minnesota whole for the full replacement of that Interstate 35 bridge in Minneapolis. Those are the new initiatives, but there are numerous other positive transportation and housing investments in this bill. The bill honors the highway guarantees which were set in the authorization bill in 2005, the SAFETEA-LU authorizing bill which was brought forward by the now minority just 2 years ago. That guarantee provides a record level of investment in transit as well. This funding will improve the Nation's transportation and infrastructure and is expected to create close to 80,000 new jobs between highways and transit. The bill also provides $1.375 billion for Amtrak, plus an additional $75 million for a new intercity passenger rail program to create a faster, safer, and more reliable intercity passenger rail system. That $75 million was requested by the President. We have included $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, the same as last year, for critical airport safety capacity and security upgrades. We have also provided almost $3.8 billion for Community Development Block Grants, the extremely popular CDBG program, which is $100 million above fiscal year 2007 but still $400 million below the fiscal year 2001 level. It is estimated that every dollar of community block grant funding leverages $3 in private investment for critical community and economic development priorities in over a thousand localities around the country. The bill restores housing for the elderly and disabled to last year's level. And finally, we have provided enough funding to ensure that no one that has a section 8 tenant or project-based housing voucher will lose that voucher in this fiscal 2008 year. Mr. Speaker, transportation and housing is not a Republican, not a Democratic issue. A broad consensus exists affirming the great needs for transportation and infrastructure investment and affordable housing nationwide. As such, this budget should be above partisan politics and should be passed and signed into law. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Pastor from Arizona. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 817, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just point out that every one that you have recited, and I have listened to probably 18 or 20 of them along the way, every one of them was in the legislation as it passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. OLVER. They were not air-dropped, as has been suggested.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?