John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 1762, Sir Francis Bernard, colonial Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, approved the incorporation of the town of Sandisfield. The town was named for Samuel Sandys, the First Lord of Trade from 1761 to 1763. Beginning around 1750, settlers from Connecticut Colony, drawn in by the abundance of land, arrived in what had been called ``Housatonic Plantation Number Three.'' Today, Sandisfield boasts 53 square miles of land, the largest in Berkshire County, covered with flourishing forests and countless brooks, streams, and ponds. Sandisfield's natural beauty, highlighted in the Sandisfield State Forest, Knox Trail, and York Lake, provides many opportunities to explore hidden trails, undisturbed woods, and shimmering lakes. Sandisfield's golden age, filled with the buzz and vibrancy of sawmills, tanneries, and numerous dairy farms, is not forgotten today; more than one hundred buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries remain. Three are included on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Baptist Meeting House from 1842. The building now houses the Sandisfield Arts Center, which exemplifies the centrality of community, so important to many cities and towns in western Massachusetts. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Sandisfield, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their civic dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community, and I wish the people of Sandisfield a healthy and prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the town of Athol, Massachusetts. On March 4, 1762 the colonial Governor of Massachusetts, Sir Francis Bernard, officially incorporated the Town of Athol, Massachusetts into the commonwealth. The town was named in honor of the Scottish heritage of an influential settler, John Murray, who had ancestral ties to Blair Atholl in Scotland. As with many colonial towns and villages in western Massachusetts, agriculture was an important and prosperous industry. In Athol, that industry grew to include milling lumber, grains, and other agricultural products. The advent of the locomotive and the expansion of railroads to Athol contributed greatly to the economic growth of the town and to increasing trade with Springfield and Vermont. As the market for goods produced in Athol expanded, new industries, such as cotton processing, tanning, production of textiles, and metal working, flourished. Athol earned the nickname of ``Tool Town'' because of the Athol Machine Company and the L. S. Starrett Company, which produced machinists' hand tools and precision tools and were both established in the 19th century. Athol's booming economy turned the town into a destination for travelers from all across Massachusetts and New England. Trolley lines from Athol to Orange shuttled visitors to and from their destinations. Today, Athol is again on the rise; its population is increasing and the spirit of resilience and determination present in the days of the lumber mills and metal works factories remains strong. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the town of Athol, Massachusetts, I congratulate its citizens and praise their dedication and perseverance throughout the town's history. It has been an honor to represent this great community, and I wish the people of Athol a healthy and prosperous future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairwoman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OLVER. My very competent staff tells me that we have been requiring this in the Mexican trucking controversy over the past few years. We've been fighting over that one back and forth for years and years now, and I can't remember whether there was or wasn't that sort of thing there. I don't remember it having come up before at any point. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. In reclaiming my time, maybe the gentleman understands and I simply do not. Who is about to promulgate regulations in this area of mandating global positioning systems, electronic onboard recording devices and so forth? Where is the action to do that? Where is the problem here?

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. OLVER. I think that what the chairman has said is probably about as good as it gets. What we have now is a slightly amended version of the proposal. My understanding is that the major long-distance trucking companies are against this language and that most of the safety advocates are against this language but that there are other trucking interests that favor this language or that are happy with this language. So you have a real controversy among people. Of the long-distance truckers and safety advocates, I would generally think that that is something we should worry about; but as the chairman has said, this is an issue that really ought to be in the hands of the authorizers and worked out by the authorizers. That may or may not be dealt with in the authorization legislation, but in any case, the limitation on funds is effective only for this 1-year appropriations bill.

Mr. OLVER. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. At this point, I really don't know whether your understanding is anywhere close to mine. I think this is an amendment deserving of opposition, so I am opposing the amendment. I think this amendment should not be adopted, and you can do as you wish. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. OLVER. I think I'm doing the correct thing there. And I'll yield, again, for the continuation of what the gentleman from California is saying.

Mr. OLVER. Madam Chair, I will then move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OLVER. Well, that can be established if they actually have a referendum that repeals what they have done. But there has been--as we know, California has received about $4 billion of moneys from the Federal Government from earlier funds in earlier bills which have already been obligated or are about to be obligated. And actions on this bill would not have anything to do with the obligation of those funds, would not be in effect at any time that could affect the obligation of those funds because they have to be obligated before the end of this fiscal year, where this bill is certainly not going to be in place in before the end of the fiscal year. But there are processes also going on. Unfortunately, we have, at the moment, no one here who is really knowledgeable precisely about what it is that's going on in California. But let me just comment here that the proposal for the starting use of these funds has been controversial. There are people who say, well, why are we building this in the Central Valley of California? Because the first intended construction of the project has been in the Bakersfield to Fresno corridor, and then if it is extended it is then likely to be extended to the Modesto metropolitan area, or the Stockton--and/or, I think it is at Modesto that there is a bifurcation. The one link of it going then to Stockton and to Sacramento, and the other going to San Jose and San Francisco. And in either case, you have to start somewhere. When we started to build the interstate highway system, we didn't start in the center of the cities, which would have been very complicated. We started in building those legs of the interstate highway system where it was easy to build them. And that is possible. The right of way, I think, has already been acquired by the California DOT to build the high-speed rail system in that first corridor, in the Bakersfield-Fresno and maybe on to Modesto, as I have understood the developments in the last few weeks as they go on. So the gentleman's problem is, it seems to me, with what's already been agreed to by California and what is already going forward, moneys that have, some of them been obligated and in place to go, and some of them yet to be obligated, but about to be obligated.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, there are no funds made available in this Act for high-speed rail. None. And so, since this is a 1-year bill, I don't think this amendment does very much. The gentleman from California has a problem with a process that has been going on now for at least a decade in the development of a high- speed rail process program, and the people of California have spoken on this by referendum. They have passed the bond bill by referendum. I think bond bills usually take an extraordinary vote, two-thirds vote or something like that. Am I correct? Would the gentleman from California confirm that it was a two-thirds vote by which the referendum was passed? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, you have hit the gavel. I would like to ask unanimous consent to call for a recorded vote on that.

Mr. OLVER. Well, I don't know how this amendment is going to solve the problem that you have exactly, but the chairman has agreed to adopt it. So I will state an objection because I really don't understand how this is going to solve your problem, but I will not go beyond that.

Mr. OLVER. And this was an executive order promulgated by President Clinton or by President Bush?

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. OLVER. This is a peculiar amendment, it seems to me. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, so there's no enforcement power in the Department of Transportation. Are there agreements by which the DOT and the Department of the Interior are bound?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. In any case, I don't object to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana for his solution, but I have to admit that I cannot identify what the problem is that this solution solves. This language that you are excluding has been in the legislation for years, before I think I was--the earliest time I was in the ranking membership of the Transportation Subcommittee, and that of course was several years before I chaired the Transportation Subcommittee. I think it has been in the language all that time and never come up. So there has been no problem that we solved where it has never been used. That flexibility has never been used to transfer money from some place in order to put money into the EAS program. So, yes, you have a solution, but I don't know what the problem is.