John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. OLVER. It is under design, and the money is being raised as we speak.

Mr. OLVER. I continue to reserve. I think I have the right to close, do I not?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

Mr. OLVER. It is under design.

Mr. OLVER. I would just reiterate in this instance that all of this money goes to achieve those specific goals for providing zero carbon footprint and net zero energy usage in this to-be-constructed museum. All of the techniques, an array of techniques, I mentioned five or six, but the array of techniques, all of those will be available as demonstrations for all of the visitors all of the years of the future of this museum. And he worries that it may never be constructed. Well, if they don't raise the money, which I expect them to do, and to be able to be in construction quite as fast as a good many of our recovery projects might get into construction, but certainly within this and the next fiscal year, that none of that money gets expended. So there is no harm at all in that. And otherwise, we have a very fine museum and a very fine demonstration project which hundreds of thousands of people will see over the next decade. So I would hope that the amendment will be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Corrine Louise Conte, a beloved neighbor and community member in western Massachusetts and Washington, DC. Corrine was a woman of many talents. A native of Pittsfield, she was a star swimmer at Pittsfield High School, and she later became an accomplished pilot. Once, while flying near her home, her plane's engine failed, but she steered the descending plane into an open field and escaped with only a fractured rib, an injury she dismissed as trifling. During World War II, Corrine served as a nurse in the Navy, where she met her future husband, the late, great Congressman Silvio O. Conte. The couple married after the war, and Corrine continued to serve as a nurse while raising their four children. When Silvio was elected to the House of Representatives, she moved their family to Bethesda, Maryland, where she became a successful real estate agent. Ever-welcoming, Corrine opened her family's home in Bethesda to ambassadors and politicians, regardless of political party. Her gatherings were known for being intimate and down-to-earth. When a Russian delegation once came to dinner, they were surprised to find that Corrine had done all the cooking herself She was a friend to several Presidents, meeting each Chief Executive from Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush, and even dancing with Lyndon Johnson at his inaugural ball. True to form, she made all of her White House gowns herself, working from a sewing table in her basement. In the late 1980s, she served on President Bush's Special Committee on Mental Health. Despite remarkable talents and powerful friends, Corrine never lost touch with her community or shrank from the rigors of public service. The phone number to her family's Pittsfield home was listed publicly, and, during the three decades her husband served in Congress, she fielded calls from constituents and often followed up on requests herself. She was an active campaigner, regularly putting in long days on the campaign trail, and a favorite with voters, who appreciated her practicality and command of the issues. After her husband's death in 1991, she dedicated herself to preserving his extensive and important legacy. Away from the public eye, Corrine was known to be a loving mother and a woman of great faith. She was also a life-long Boston Red Sox fan and reportedly was elated to see her team finally reverse the ``Curse of Bambino'' by sweeping the World Series in 2004. Corrine Conte's strength, warmth and charm were legendary. The friends she made and the people she touched throughout her remarkable life will miss her dearly.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my friends from Florida and Wisconsin for being here tonight to help to enlighten people about what has become a very, very critical issue for America. The only agreement that I can see about the debate that we are beginning to have on reform of the health care system is that virtually every American family, all across the board, knows that health insurance is too expensive. For the 50 million or so Americans who don't have any health insurance, it is obviously too expensive or they otherwise would already have it. For the next 50 million who have too little insurance or are underinsured, as it is called, they know it is too expensive when their insurance company refuses to pay for coverage that they thought they had or the insurance company makes a claim that there was a previous condition involved and that may have been why they are now are claiming that they shouldn't pay the money. Or there are a certain number of people who have lost jobs in this economy and thereby have lost their coverage for health insurance, and for them, obviously, the whole situation has gotten out of hand. Yes, our American health insurance is too expensive. Let me use this first chart and show you what the situation is here. This is a chart which shows the health care cost as a percentage of gross domestic product in the G-7 countries. The G-7 countries are America and the next six largest economies in the world, except for China. These data, it indicates that the Japanese data are for the year 2005, whereas the other data are for the year 2008. You can see on the chart that the percentage of health care cost as a percent of their domestic product ranges from 8.2 to 11.1 percent in the other six next largest economies in this world, and here we are up over 15. And, by the way, these data, if you look at 09, fiscal 09, you would probably find that that number 15.3 percent is probably up to 16 percent or a little higher because of the problems with the economy. Health care continues to go up, and people are struggling for that reason. So we have by far the highest. We are 40 percent roughly higher than the next-highest one of the largest economies, which is the industrial economies with which we compete all the time. And the average of the other six members, our partners in the G-7, their average number is only two-thirds. We are more than 50 percent higher than the average of those other six countries. So, yes, American health insurance is too expensive, and this huge gap between our health care costs, the burden that that puts on our industries, between that burden in this country versus the others of our major competitors, hurts American businesses and costs us jobs. You only need to look at the auto industry, where our old icons of Chrysler and General Motors now are struggling, and in large measure because the cost of their health care in this country is so much greater than it is for other countries producing automobiles. Well, that might be okay, or it might be acceptable, that kind of a cost difference, if we got the best health care. Everyone watching has probably heard a politician tell them that we have the best health care in the world. Well, we do have the most expensive health care in the world. That chart very clearly illustrates that we do have the most expensive health care in the world. But I would like to examine that question of whether we have the best health care a little bit more deeply with this chart, which shows what the life expectancy is among the very same heavily industrialized countries, which are our major partners in industry and in commerce and trade around the world. Again, I leave out China, but I am using the G-7 countries. All seven of them are listed there. What you see on this chart is that life expectancy in the United States is less than each and every one of the other members of the G-7 group, each of the other six partner members in the G-7 largest economies in the world. And if I average the life expectancies in those other six countries, it is 3 years longer than American citizens live. Now, that does not suggest that we have the very best health care in the world or the very best health care that we could have. Then on this last chart let me just illustrate one more measure of what our health care quality is, and this measure is one that directly affects a huge number of families at the very beginning of life. This is the question of infant mortality in the G-7 countries, where you see the listed number of deaths for children under the age of one. So it is deaths among new infants lower be than the age of one. Going from Japan, you see 2.7 per 1,000 births, on to 5.5 for Italy per 1,000 births, and the U.S., the highest number of infant deaths that are occurring before the age of 1 year. Again, if you average the six, you find that the infant mortality in the United States is more than 50 percent higher than the average of these six other nations. So, I think one has to ask the question, after going through all of that, and I have to look and see where the question is on my papers, one has to ask the question, is the assertion that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, basically is it true, is it not true, is it simply a lie? We ought really to think very carefully while we're doing the reform of our health care system, as we're going to do later this year. We ought to think very carefully about figures like this and a whole bunch of other measures. I could go through a series of other measures that show similar kinds of data, and show that we are not doing as well as we ought to be doing as the richest country in the world. There are reasons for that. We'll have other times to perhaps explore some of those other reasons. But I'm very pleased that the gentlemen, my friends from Connecticut and Florida and Wisconsin, are taking this up tonight, and that I have been able to bring some little bit of thought to how this is going forward in America. Thank you.

Mr. OLVER. It really would. I must say, it's daunting to be taking part in a discussion with an M.D. who has been through this so intimately and has so many examples that he can put forward. We have two or three other medical doctors here in the Congress, and I'm glad we're not having this discussion among just them and me because I would feel completely out of place. But I did want to comment to something that my friend from Connecticut had said after I finished my chart talk essentially, and that was, yeah, we should be willing to accept a higher cost in this country. True. I said that it would be perfectly acceptable if we were getting outcomes that correspond to the cost that is going in. We do have a very productive workforce, and the total value of our economy is so high that I think you would find, per person, per member of the workforce, that the value of our economy, the gross product per member is substantially greater than most, if not all of these. I don't have the data on that, but I think I have seen them. And so you would expect that you should be able to spend more in real dollars than others and still maybe not be hurting the economy. But when it gets so out of range, then you really have to look at what are the outcomes. One other outcome that I would just like to mention, because I used first the life expectancy of our people at large, from the time that they are born until they join their Maker, and then the infant mortality, but then look at the other question, the question of maternal mortality, which very closely mirrors the data on infant mortality, though that goes from the birth until 1 year of age, whereas maternal mortality would refer only to women who die in childbirth. And there, again, our value is, in this country, with supposedly the best health care in the country in the world, our number, again, is about twice, almost twice as high as it is in the other major industrial partners of ours in this whole world economic system. So that's just one more--I did not bring that chart along, but that's just one more of those measures of the many kinds of measures that you could look at.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee bid farewell earlier this week to Amy Schick who has served as the Subcommittee's Congressional Fellow over the past year. Ms. Schick returned to the Office of Occupant Protection and Impaired Driving at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, where she will have her next assignment as part of the Presidential Management Fellow program. The Transportation Subcommittee was fortunate to have Amy as a part of the Subcommittee team. She did a superb job researching a variety of transportation issues; preparing hearing and briefing materials; and, managing the thousands of project requests that were submitted to the Subcommittee during the fiscal year 2009 appropriations process. In addition, Amy had lead staff responsibility for oversight of the budgets of the Surface Transportation Board and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Amy's organizational skills and unwavering positive attitude set a high standard for the Subcommittee. Her outstanding commitment to public service was evident not only in how she performed her duties on the Subcommittee but also through her dedication and brave service in the United States Army Reserves. I am profoundly grateful for Amy's service to the Subcommittee over the past twelve months and I am confident that she will go on to achieve great things at the Department of Transportation. I, along with my Subcommittee staff, wish Amy all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the immediate previous speaker say that we should freeze all expenditure at the 08 level. Well, speaker after speaker from the other side of the aisle have said--from what they've said it would seem to me they are in complete denial, utter denial, of where we are and why we got here. The fact that we have had a recession. We've been in a recession for at least, now, into the fifth quarter. All of that being in the budget year of 08, fiscal 08, and then part of 09 when we did part of our budget under the previous President. We, in that period of time, have ended up losing more than 3 million jobs in the 08 calendar year. We're still going to lose more jobs. We're still in recession, clearly in recession. And we have also been suffering from a foreclosure crisis where we've lost more than 3 million homes to foreclosure.

Mr. OLVER. What that totals to is of course there is more expenditure when you are talking about trying to get out of a recession and a foreclosure crisis--which every economist, reputable economist, at least, that we've heard from on either side of the aisle says that the kind of recovery package that we have passed only 2 weeks ago was important to be able to put a bottom under this recession, under the foreclosure crisis, and such. The foreclosure crisis caused by total lack of any kind of regulation of the financial industry has occurred under their watch. So here we are, we have a recovery package which actually does increase the expenditure over what would be the normal expenditure in a given year. Our regular budget that we're passing is only the regular budget. The stimulus package is above that, and it needs to be above that. And they've got to stop being in denial of how we got there and why we're having to do this.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the founding of Amherst, Massachusetts 250 years ago on February 13, 1759. The following history provided by the Amherst Historical Society paints a fascinating picture of a town I have been honored to represent my entire legislative career. Two hundred fifty years ago, a section of Hadley, Massachusetts became the district of Amherst when local men petitioned the government of Massachusetts Bay to incorporate Hadley's Second Precinct (as Amherst was officially called) as a district which could hold town meetings and govern itself. On February 13, 1759, a bill was passed and the royal governor, Thomas Pownall, named the new district ``Amherst'' to honor his friend General Jeffery Amherst, who had recently led a successful military expedition against the French in Canada. Hadley famers, who had been grazing their cattle on Amherst lands since the late 1600s, called this land by many names--Hadley Farms, East Farms, Hadley Outer Commons, East Hadley, New Swamp, and event Foote's Folly Swamp. Hadley farmers didn't think much of Amherst's soil as compared with the richer soils closer to the Connecticut River, but the Amherst land was fertile enough and, during a brief peaceful period in the late 1720s, a few farmers ventured to establish Amherst homesteads. In the 1750s, more farms sprang up and the population of ``East Hadley'' topped that of the original settlement, but inhabitants were still required to travel to Hadley to conduct town business and pay taxes, for which they received little in return. This led, naturally, to the locals desire to govern themselves. But Amherst's history goes back much farther. About 1,000 years ago, native peoples who lived and fanned all over Southern New England, including the area that became Amherst, met regularly at sites along the Connecticut River for fishing, feasting, and socializing. The Norwottucks, one of those groups, traveled through Amherst and probably set up temporary campsites along the Fort and Mill Rivers. They used two major trails, a path that later became Bay Road and one in the area of Pulpit Hill and East Leverett Roads. The beginnings of the town we know today were not only built by those original farmers from Hadley and surrounding communities but by Africans who were brought here as slaves, torn from their homelands and families. Up through the 1770s, slaves were bought, sold, leased, and traded in Amherst. They worked on their owners' houses and farms and were always subject to being sold away from their families. During this same period, several free blacks also lived in Amherst. Today, descendants from every group representing Amherst's ``First Comers'' can be found living in town and throughout the Connecticut River Valley. What distinguished Amherst from other Connecticut Valley farming towns was an early interest in education. Between 1814 and 1821, Amherst citizens established both Amherst Academy and Amherst College. As early as 1847, Massachusetts citizens began thinking about the need for agricultural education, which paved the way for the founding of the Massachusetts Agricultural College in Amherst in 1863. In this same period, Amherst boasted small-scale manufacturing (and later large- scale hat factories) but without a large, powerful river, manufacturing never blossomed as it did in other Massachusetts communities. Amherst remained an agricultural and educational community. It was the establishment of the University of Massachusetts in 1947 and its post-World War II expansion, the opening of Hampshire College in 1970, and the attendant population increase and development boom that threatened Amherst's small town character and natural beauty. Citizens responded with local laws to preserve agricultural land and to limit development. By the late 1960s, the town was noted for being progressive and socially conscious, with outspoken citizens bringing national and international issues to the local level. This independent spirit, combined with good schools, open spaces, and a vibrant intellectual life, has made Amherst a magnet for newcomers. There are also other Amhersts: a home to immigrants from all over the world; a place where machinists and shop owners work and goods are made and sold; a place where people struggle to make ends meet amid social services spread then; and a town caught between residents' high expectations for schools and services and a tax base largely funded by property tax on private residences. Slightly more than half of Amherst's land is in use by the colleges and university or remains under conservation or agricultural restriction. Townspeople watch and wait as the resolutions to these economic issues evolve and define Amherst's future. Once again, I am proud and honored to represent this town rich in history and community. Please join me in congratulating the Town of Amherst as it celebrates its 250th Founders Day.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Economic Recovery bill that will put America back to work and throw a life-line to the millions of people that are struggling to support their families. In the last four months alone, the economy has lost over 2 million jobs. By the end of 2009, an additional 3-5 million Americans could lose their jobs and without this package, the unemployment rate is likely to rise to 12 percent. Mr. Speaker, the transportation and housing investments in this bill will create jobs, generate economic growth, and significantly improve our transportation and housing infrastructure. The bill appropriates over $48 billion for surface transportation and aviation and over $13 billion for housing investment. Within the $48 billion for transportation over 75 percent of that money will quickly go to the states through existing authorized formula programs for ready to go highway and transit projects. This funding will create over 1 million new jobs. Among discretionary transportation initiatives, $8 billion is provided for high-speed and intercity passenger rail which is an historic investment in America's future. The bill invests in the nation's public housing, provides funding to communities hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed housing, and includes money to fill financing gaps in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit caused by the collapse of the credit market. Together these housing appropriations will yield about 250,000 jobs. While I believe more must still be done to adequately invest in public transit and to help communities with the growing number of foreclosures, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good bill Mr. Speaker and I urge a yes vote.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I support quickly moving forward with a recovery package to put America back to work. The reckless actions of much of Wall Street, coupled with years of inadequate regulatory oversight, have led to a housing and financial crisis of enormous proportions. Spiraling foreclosure rates have put millions of families on the brink of disaster and infected the entire economy. We must stop an economic collapse and throw a life-line to the millions of people that are struggling to find work and support their families. In the last four months alone, the economy has lost over 2 million jobs. By the end of 2009, an additional 3-5 million Americans could lose their jobs and without this package, the unemployment rate is likely to rise to 12 percent. Any final bill must create new jobs by: repairing and improving our nation's roads, highways and bridges and improve and expand public transportation in urban and rural areas. Surface transportation funding in the House bill would create more than 1 million new jobs. The House and Senate bills would also create jobs by investing in safety and capacity improvements at our Nation's airports; capital investments in Amtrak and intercity passenger rail; and energy retrofits in our Nation's public housing, HUD assisted housing and Indian reservation housing. This is just some of the important job creating stimulus in this bill. It is important that we act quickly to bolster the sagging economy. I strongly support this investment package because it will help put America back to work and improve our transportation and housing infrastructure.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona would strike all of the funding for Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. I want to remind people that the primary objective of this economic recovery bill is to fund ready-to-go projects that create jobs quickly. And very few programs in this bill do that as fast as Amtrak. Amtrak has $1.3 billion in ready-to-go projects that it can spend out in fiscal 2009 and twice that that can be used in fiscal year 2010. Jobs will be created immediately nationwide and include repairing infrastructure, renovating stations to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and rehabilitating or purchasing rolling stock for the company. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, the chairwoman of the Railroad Subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues, Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service over approximately 20,000 miles in 46 States which are owned by private freight railroads. But it also owns and maintains 1,000 miles of track, particularly in the Northeast Corridor, and half of all of Amtrak's passengers are carried in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has been consistently undercapitalized during its 37 years' existence. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimates that Amtrak's capital backlog on the Northeast Corridor alone exceeds $10 billion to reach a state of good repair. On the NEC, some bridges date to the late 1800s. The electric tracking system between New York and Washington was funded by the Works Progress Administration as part of a 1930 stimulus bill, economic stimulus. The speed and the capacity and the safety of the Northeast Corridor rail passenger operations are at risk. This amendment should be defeated, and I urge that there be a ``no'' vote. I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman--or the ranking member.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important legislation to put America back to work. The financial crisis on Wall Street will soon be addressed by this Congress, and we must not adjourn for the year without also throwing a lifeline to the millions of people that are struggling to find work and support their families. In the last year alone, the unemployment rate has risen from 4.3 percent to 6.1 percent. Furthermore, we currently need about 125,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. Instead, we have lost over 600,000 jobs since January, yielding a deficit of 1,600,000 jobs so far this year. The jobs bill before us is needed for two reasons. It will create thousands of new good-paying jobs, and it will help close the investment gap in our transportation and housing infrastructure. The transportation and housing infrastructure parts of this bill will create nearly 500,000 jobs. In addition to the jobs created, the infrastructure investments we fund will make a lasting and tangible impact on this country. This bill provides funding only for projects that will have an immediate economic impact and can be bid within 90 days. The bill includes almost $13 billion to create safer and less congested roads and bridges, over $5 billion to improve and expand transit and intercity passenger rail, $600 million for safety and capacity improvements at our Nation's airports, and $1 billion in infrastructure funding for the public housing capital fund, which will help repair our Nation's public housing. Let's put America back to work and improve our transportation and housing infrastructure by passing the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to reauthorize Amtrak and rail safety programs. I want to commend and congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for their tremendous efforts and fine work on this important piece of legislation. I also congratulate Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown and her ranking member, Mr. Shuster, for their tireless efforts on the bill. At a time of record fuel prices, Americans are finding travel by air more expensive and increasingly difficult. It is no secret that those record fuel prices, along with congestion on our Nation's highways, make travel by car less attractive and less affordable. Investments in intercity passenger rail and high-speed rail must become more integrated into our Nation's transportation policy, and this legislation will help accomplish that goal. Intercity passenger rail is already experiencing its own renaissance. Amtrak has enjoyed 5 straight years of record level ridership, reaching almost 26 million passengers in 2007, and 2008 will be another record year. This bill will help Amtrak reduce its capital backlog, increase safety and improve service. This bill opens the door to true high-speed rail service in the Northeast corridor and will help many more Americans enjoy the benefits of intercity passenger rail. Again, I would like to commend the authors of this bill, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, as the stock market plunges, financial institutions fail and the economic pain Americans feel grows, our Republican colleagues' only answer is to drill. Drilling won't help the 2 million Americans who have lost jobs in the last year. Drilling won't protect 46 million Americans without health insurance, 7 million more than when George Bush took office. Drilling won't help nearly 6 million people who have slipped into poverty. Drilling won't bring back the huge surplus that George Bush inherited and squandered. And drilling won't help the 3 million families who have lost their homes to foreclosure in the last 3 years. Despite their cries for drilling, our Republican colleagues voted against accelerated drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve, already under lease, and against drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. In fact, the drilling they do support wouldn't produce new oil for at least 8 years. In truth, they don't want to help American families. They only want to distract public attention from eight disastrous years under George Bush.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues are saying that H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act that this House will debate and pass later today, is a sham. Let me remind them, H.R. 6899 contains essentially the same drilling language they demanded a vote on in June and July. Yet, they will vote against it today just as they did in June and July when they voted against requiring drilling in the already leased National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, against cracking down on speculation, and against releasing a small portion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The truth is, they don't want to even begin to fix the problem. They only want to distract public attention from eight disastrous years of the Bush administration. A failing economy, a failing foreign policy, a clearly failed energy policy, and no new ideas.