John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today, we are engaged in a bait-and-switch exercise that Congress is exceptionally good at, but which is utterly shameful. We all know we have a problem, a broad problem. Ninety-eight percent of the fuel that is used by our vehicles, our autos and trucks for personal and commercial purposes, for highway and air travel operates on oil. The world has the same problem. We have a now problem. Our gasoline prices are hovering at $3 a gallon, and that causes a serious problem for a lot of our commerce and a lot of our families. Yet, if we accept the solution offered today by this bill to explore and develop for oil on the coastal plain of ANWR, it will be 5 years, at least, and probably closer to 8 before the first barrel of oil flows from that effort. By then, we will be having $6 a gallon gasoline and only 1 to 2 years worth of the oil that we need every single year for our transportation. The broad permanent solution, solar cars, hydrogen cars, electric cars, and total replacement of gasoline by ethanol cars, is most likely a generation away. But the real bait and switch is that we have the technology already available to increase the efficiency by 50 percent within the same 5 to 8 years that we would need to develop the first barrel of oil out of ANWR, which would save as much oil every single year that is provided for only 1 or 2 years by what we have had estimated as the ANWR capacity. ANWR is a small part of Alaska. It is a small part of the north slope area of Alaska. Ninety percent, more than that, of the coastal plain of the north coast is already open to oil and gas exploration and development. The coastal plain within ANWR is an exceptionally concentrated productive habitat for caribou and migratory birds. It provides calving for hundreds of thousands of caribou and nesting for a multitude of species of birds. The habitat also then becomes habitat for predator species. It would be a tragedy to disrupt this very critical natural habitat by the utterly destructive action sanctioned by this bill which will not reduce by a single penny the gasoline prices which are our now problem. I hope we will not adopt either the rule or the legislation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am sorry that the gentleman from Alaska has raised this point of order because planet Earth is warming. Climate scientists of all persuasions agree that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850, and all agree that the accurately measurable concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has risen from about 280 parts per million in 1850 to over 380 parts per million today. Furthermore, 75 of that 100 parts per million rise has occurred in just the last 40 years. As a scientist, my attention became totally focused on global warming some 15 years ago by the elegant and powerful measurements of carbon dioxide trapped in ice cores taken as much as 2 miles deep from the great East Antarctica ice sheet. Those data give a continuous 400,000-year record of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time the snow that now makes up that great ice sheet fell. Through four successive cycles of deep cold followed by interglacial periods of warming, in the coldest part of each cycle the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere never fell below 190 parts per million, and in the warmest period of each cycle never rose above 280 parts per million. Suddenly, within the last 40 years, concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has smashed through the 400,000-year maximum of 280 parts per million to a 380-part per million level and continues to rise. Since 1850, burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas has increased 100 times to produce energy as the world has industrialized to serve the world's more than 6 billion and growing population. The scientists who do climate research understand that much of the ever increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 must be attributed to burning those fossil fuels to produce the energy that drives industrialization. With this chart, let me touch one facet of the climate crisis that we are dealing with. 6.3 billion people, on average, produce four tons of CO2 every year. That comes to a total of slightly more than 25 billion tons of CO2 produced every year. Our 290 million people produce 20 tons per person, and China, with its almost 1.3 billion people in 2003 produced 2.7 tons per person of CO2. We all know that China is industrializing at a growth rate of 8 to 10 percent per year. China is on track to pass the U.S. as the largest economy in the world in 20 to 25 years, and China is determined to give its people a chance at this high standard of living that we enjoy. Consider a hypothetical case. If every country except China stayed exactly where they are on population and energy usage, and China alone industrialized to our level, using the same mix of energy sources that the U.S. uses in emitting the same 20 tons of CO2 per person that the U.S. emits, it is a simple calculation to reach a number by taking the 1.3 billion Chinese and multiplying it by the difference between 20 and 2.7, 17.3 additional tons per person, and that comes to 22.5 billion tons of added CO2 over what is presently emitted by the whole world. That is 90 percent as much as is being produced by the whole world today. The industrialization of China alone would increase by 90 percent the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and would at least increase the atmospheric CO2 by at least another 100 parts per million. That simple example tells why climate scientists are so concerned about the lack of effective measures to curb CO2 emissions, to develop new technology, to produce energy that does not produce CO2, to increase efficiency of present technology and, frankly, to conserve energy. The sense of the Congress resolution on which a point of order has been raised recognizes the looming crisis that human life faces if we continue to produce the energy needed by methods that disrupt the Earth's climate by adding humongous amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. It is a critical first step in any effort to address global warming.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for three years the Sudanese government and its armed militia have been engaged in a violent conflict against two major rebel groups in Sudan. This struggle has evolved into an ongoing campaign of government-backed violence and ethnic cleansing, but the international community has failed to take sufficient action to put an end to these atrocities. Congress and the Bush Administration have recognized the slaughter in Darfur as genocide, but it is time to also hold the government in Khartoum accountable for the horrendous actions against civilians and provide international assistance to the victims in Darfur. To date, more than two million people in Darfur have been driven from their homes and hundreds of thousands have been brutally murdered. Many who have been fortunate enough to escape the violence in Darfur have sought sanctuary in the neighboring country of Chad, but now acts of violence and genocide are following them over the border. The New York Times reported on February 28 that Chadians are now becoming the target of cross-border attacks by Sudanese militia. These assaults are sending civilians from Chad over the border to Sudan, directly into the heart of the violence and bloodshed. The African Union Mission in Sudan, AMIS, is charged with monitoring an ineffective ceasefire that has been consistently ignored by both sides of the conflict. But the African Union does not have the resources, training or mandate to provide real protection for the people of Darfur. The African Union needs support from the international community, and H.R. 3127 is the first step in this process. This legislation directs the President to instruct the U.S. representative to NATO to advocate for NATO reinforcement of AMIS and to urge the Security Council to adopt a resolution supporting the expansion of AMIS. Today I offer my support for the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and I hope that Congress, the Bush Administration and the International Community can work together to put an end to crisis in Darfur.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania, a decorated Marine from the Vietnam War and the most respected person in the House of Representatives on military affairs, has the Iraq situation just about right. A free and stable Iraq cannot be achieved militarily. We should not be suffering casualties nearly three years after that fateful day on the carrier off San Diego when President Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished,'' and yet 93 percent of our casualties have occurred since that day. The Iraqis must make hard political decisions. They must decide if they want a unified country with shared power and responsibility proportionate to population and protected rights for all. As long as we run the military operations and bear the brunt of casualties, the political decisions are avoided. We must make it clear that we will not be caught in their civil war if the Iraqis do not want a unified country enough to avoid a civil war politically. We must make a concerted effort to persuade the EU, NATO and the rest of our allies to help train Iraqi security forces and establish a judicial system so Iraqis can regain their lives. President Bush's repeated claim that nearly 200,000 Iraqi police and army personnel have been trained to secure Iraq has been disputed for months, even by our own military leaders. However, those Iraqis, whatever their numbers, must stand up for a unified Iraq if that is what they want and believe in. Finally, we need to withdraw from Iraq expeditiously within 2006. I am voting against this supplemental budget because it simply enables the president to continue his totally flawed and incompetently managed misadventure without forcing the Iraqis to reach political accommodations that can end the insurgency and create a stable, unified country. This war supplemental will be followed by another equally large one as soon as our November elections have passed. You can bet on it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this statement be inserted into the Congressional Record at the appropriate place: ``On Tuesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Professor Jeffrey Leigh Sedgwick to head the Bureau of Justice Statistics. For over 24 years Professor Sedgwick has taught students at the University of Massachusetts the intricacies of the American Political System. Throughout the course of his established career he has also spread his expertise to other educational institutions, such as Smith College in Massachusetts and the University of Virginia. It is time now for Professor Sedgwick to loan his knowledge and experience to the Federal Government as the head of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. ``Professor Sedgwick has devoted much of his career to the study and interpretation of criminal justice and through the years he has developed a strong sense of our Nation's criminal justice system. His in-depth research has led to a number of books, articles and editorials offering insight into crime and punishment in the United States. These qualifications give Professor Sedgwick a solid foundation for taking over the responsibilities of the head of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. ``This would not be Professor Sedgwick's first experience in the Federal Government. In 1984 he served as the Deputy Director for Data Analysis within the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In this position he gained a familiarity for the work that this bureau does and moved on to a career of studying crime and justice. Professor Sedgwick is indisputably qualified to take over operations at the Bureau of Justice Statistics and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to confirm him for this post.''

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union speech, President Bush said: ``Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people, and we are going to keep that edge. But the President's budget for next year cuts education by more than $2 billion. His budget freezes the maximum award for Pell grants for the third year in a row. That means Pell grants will be worth almost 10 percent less than they were just 5 years ago. His budget cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from loan programs, making it more difficult for half a million low- and moderate-income students to get the financial aid they need to stay in college. His budget totally eliminates funding for TRIO Upward Bound that helps students trying to be the first person from their family to go to college. Yet President Bush's budget adds over $350 billion to the national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. Americans lose when the President's actions contradict his promises.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I congratulate the Iraqi people on the completion of their parliamentary election and I request an open debate on Iraq. The parliamentary election concluded yesterday in Iraq is a towering achievement and if this resolution spoke to that achievement I would be happy to vote for it. But the votes have not even been counted and we cannot yet know whether this parliamentary election will produce elected members proportionately from the many ethnic and religious groups that make up the Iraqi people. That is necessary for the give and take and political compromises that occur in a healthy and mature democracy, to lead to a stable and unified Iraqi nation. I think every member of this House hopes this parliamentary election will lead to a stable free and democratic Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people and especially the courageous Americans who have died or are now serving in Iraq. What we do know is the constitution under which this parliamentary election has been held has major flaws. Under the constitution the central government powers are exercised through a weak and perilously divided executive; provisions remain that will further fracture Iraq into smaller regions drawn along religious, ethnic, and tribal lines; and incredibly, the huge revenues from oil, the greatest Iraqi natural and national resource, are reserved solely for the use of the region where the oil is produced. These factors bode extremely poorly for the establishment of a stable, free unified Iraq and the constitution will surely have to be greatly modified. Given those problems it is at the very least premature to be trumpeting victory in Iraq whatever that victory may ultimately look like. Over a 15 year period America has engaged in two wars in Iraq. President Herbert Walker Bush, with the full support of the United Nations and a broad coalition of participating nations, followed his military commanders' advice by deploying 500,000 troops to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion. Saddam Hussein was driven out of Kuwait with only 19 American soldiers losing their lives. In contrast, President George W. Bush, without U.N. support and only a small coalition of the so called ``willing,'' rejected his highest military commanders' advice and deployed only 140,000 troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein, occupy Iraq, and establish a free and stable Iraq. Establishing a free and stable Iraq is a noble goal. Yet after two and a half years of war, occupation, and insurgency, our casualties in this ill-conceived and incompetently managed war in Iraq have now passed 2,155 American soldiers killed. More than 2,000 of those deaths have occurred since the President George W. Bush declared ``Mission Accomplished'' 30 months ago. I fervently hope that this resolution, a year from now, will not show this House with as much egg on its face as that ``Mission Accomplished'' declaration produced.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a member of the subcommittee and the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, I think we must be on the train headed for Turkey or something like that, because I expected to have my chairman to have a good many more comments to say than he has done. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the staff on both sides for their exceedingly diligent work in putting this conference report together. I want to recognize our committee clerk Dena Baron and her excellent majority staff, including Cheryle Tucker, Dave Gibbons, Steve Crane, Dave Napoliello, Christian Jones and Tammy Hughes. And for the minority, I thank the committee staff Mike Malone and Michelle Burkett, and Shalanda Young; and from my own staff, Matt Washington and Nora Kaitfors. All worked under particularly difficult circumstances to complete this bill and deserve our gratitude for a job well done. I also want to thank Chairman Knollenberg for his hard work and dedication, and for the constructive relationship that we have forged thus far as the chairman and the ranking member of this complicated jurisdiction. I particularly congratulate Chairman Knollenberg for the collaborative way in which the majority and the minority staffs worked to bring this bill forward, and congratulate the chairman because he has not simply allowed, but encouraged that collaboration, and the collaboration has gotten stronger and more effective throughout the workings of the subcommittee in the hearings, then the Appropriations Committee process, then floor consideration, then the conference, and today the conference report. So I am particularly grateful to him for that collaboration. This is a very complex bill. There are nine titles to this bill really covering two different divisions, because the jurisdiction is a little bit different in the other body than it is in this House. The portion of our jurisdiction which is the District of Columbia makes up a separate subcommittee on the other side. The allocation for this overall subcommittee was below both the House and the Senate, by more than a billion dollars below the House number and more than a half a billion dollars below the Senate's number. All or part of a billion dollars would have made a great difference where holes remain in this bill. But that was the allocation that we were given, and so we had to deal with it. With that I want to just point out first that in the matter of the District of Columbia, which is a separate division within this bill, as I mentioned, it is an important and sometimes overlooked portion of the bill, perhaps partly so because of the different jurisdictions in the House and the Senate. It makes up only a small portion of the appropriation in the combined bill, but the value of the initiatives funded through this bill cannot be understated. I am pleased that we were able to provide valuable funding for important initiatives that include the Anacostia River Trail, the Water and Sewer Authority and for elementary and secondary and postsecondary education. I particularly regret the continuing rider forbidding the use of local funds for needle exchange programs. I think they are an important tool in a city such as our Capital which has a high HIV incidence. But I do commend the chairman for ensuring no new social riders were placed on the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, if one looks at this legislation because of the allocations being low, I think if you have a primary interest in the judiciary, you are going to find good and bad provisions within the title relating to the judiciary. If your primary interest is in housing, you may find good and bad there. If it is in transportation, you may find good and bad there. But I believe that no one can legitimately find the effect of the low and, in my view, inadequate allocation is disproportionately borne by any one title or subtitle within the bill. In housing, for instance, the sections that were so hotly contested on the floor when the House bill was under consideration here back in July, that section, most of those hotly contested items have been included simply by balancing halfway, reaching halfway between the two branches. One in particular, if I remember in particular, the shop program, it was in the House bill and not in the Senate, and the House number is the one that is used in the final report. So these provisions are fairly dealt with. In the transportation section, probably the most hotly contested issue was the issue of Amtrak. And in this conference report, we have provided the largest total number of dollars for Amtrak that has ever been provided by going halfway between the House and the Senate numbers. But at the same time, we have used what I think are very valuable fire walls between capital spending and debt financing and operating subsidy, and provided also language that should lead to important and significant reforms in the operation of Amtrak. So, I think that too is very fair. In fact, my comments about there being, for those who might be interested in only one title, or primarily in one title, could also apply to the good and bad in the titles which are the part of the 60 or 70 or so outside sections, those sections are included in the two titles that are general provisions for the agencies in this bill alone, and then general provisions that apply to all of government. I want to mention just a couple of those because in one case, the case of Cuba language, we fought a war in Vietnam against the Communist North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, in which more than 50,000 American young men and women died. Yet we have normalized relations with Vietnam by following an engagement communication trade and travel policy. Similarly, we fought a war against China, which is virtually to the day now 55 years ago, started 55 years ago on the Korean peninsula, and we have again followed the engagement communication trade and travel policy with Communist China. And China, it goes so far as to now have China with the largest trade surplus with respect to us. Obviously our largest trade deficit is with Communist China, and China holds the second largest amount of our national debt that is held by a foreign nation. Again, this year, the House and the Senate passed, by roll call votes in each branch, identical language to bring us to a rational engagement communication trade and travel policy in Cuba, which has been so successful in the case of Vietnam and China. You will not find any such language in this conference report. I regret that deeply because what I think that means is that America will continue its hyperventilated tantrum against Cuba for another year, and that is unfortunate that we are putting off the normalization of our relations with Cuba. But at the same time, while I regret that, I see elsewhere other provisions that are in the so-called general provisions, which are very good. The conference report includes corporate expatriates language that was in the Senate bill which prohibits Federal agencies which are part of this act from contracting with corporations that located outside the United States to avoid paying corporate taxes. This language has been fought over year after year in this House of Representatives, and I am glad that we have gone along with the Senate's language and included it in this conference report. This report provides a level playing field for our dedicated Federal employees by including language that deals with the Federal employee contracting out protections often referred to as ``A-76.'' This is the third straight year that conferees negotiated a compromise provision; however, this year the provision remains, and once again the intent of this House is carried out. And I thank Chairman Knollenberg for that. On balance, I believe that this is a very good bill. Under Chairman Knollenberg's guidance the staff has produced a fair and proportionate bill, and I hope that the conference report will be adopted overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge the adoption of the conference report, and yield the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and honor the Berkshire Division of the Juvenile Court Department of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on this, National Adoption Day, for their dedication to the hundreds of children in foster care in Berkshire County, Massachusetts, and for their promotion of adoption, which allows over 30 children per year to enter into loving and nurturing families. Today, in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, sixteen adoptions will be performed in honor of National Adoption Day and in recognition of November as Adoption Awareness Month throughout the United States. I want to thank the Berkshire Juvenile Court, under the guidance of the Honorable First Justice Paul E. Perachi, for their dedication and commitment to the children and families of Berkshire County, Massachusetts.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to talk about the misguided conference report that the majority party has produced. While the number of people living in poverty in this country continues to rise, this conference report fails to adequately fund programs that work to alleviate poverty. Despite the evidence, this conference report cuts Head Start funding and freezes funding for programs such as the Community Service Block Grant and LIHEAP. As the number of Americans without health insurance sets new records every day, this conference report is cutting funding to programs that provide healthcare assistance to the uninsured. It eliminates the Healthy Communities Access Program and imposes drastic cuts to Maternal and Child Health funding and Rural Health Outreach. These cuts are in addition to $11 billion in cuts to Medicaid that are included in the majority party's reconciliation bill that may be voted on later today. As the number of Americans unable to find a job continues to rise this conference report issues devastating cuts to initiatives that help put dislocated workers back in the labor force. Currently, 7.4 million Americans are unemployed, yet this conference report cuts Unemployment Insurance and Employment Services by $141 million. At a time when this country should be investing in education and human capital, this conference agreement cuts $784 million from No Child Left Behind. It cuts funding for Even Start and Safe and Drug Free Schools, and freezes funding for adult education. These cuts are in addition to a reconciliation bill that cuts $14.3 billion from student aid for college students. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to find solutions to problems not make them worse. We have a responsibility to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to share in America's prosperity. It is irresponsible that we approve this conference report that cuts and eliminates essential programs when there is such an obvious need for the services they provide. I cannot in good conscience vote for this conference report and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, tomorrow's reconciliation bill is a reckless attack on students attending college. Basically, the bill burdens students from low- and middle-income families with 33 percent higher debt to pay for tax cuts that benefit almost exclusively those whose income is over $200,000 a year. This bill cuts $14 billion from student aid by increasing interest rates and taxes on loans and charging students new fees. The cost of college is skyrocketing, and it already leaves the average student $17,000 in debt. This bill would increase that debt by 33 percent. Many low- and middle-income students will no longer be able to afford college and their lifetime earning power will be reduced. Under the reconciliation bill, at least four students are going to start their careers burdened with added debt to pay for each millionaire's tax cut. And all this is being done so that the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans can have another huge tax cut.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of what has been a long and complicated process. As we all know, the Treasury, Transportation, HUD and other agencies, commonly known as the THUD bill, has many moving parts; and while there are many issues to be addressed in the conference, I want to highlight a few today to refresh our memory. The motion to instruct is fairly straightforward and simple. It addresses three items that deserve the body's attention. The first is funding to ensure that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak, maintains its current level of service. It is funded in both bills; however, the House bill provides $1.18 billion and the Senate bill provides $1.4 billion. As you can see, it is intent of both houses of this Congress to fund Amtrak, and my motion to instruct conferees insists on sufficient funding to ensure that Amtrak can continue to provide service, make capital improvements and pay its debt. The second item deals with the micropurchase cap. The second Katrina supplemental budget included an administration proposal to increase the micropurchase threshold from $15,000 to $250,000. This means that authorized holders of government credit cards can now charge items that cost up to a quarter of a million dollars. This is far beyond the purpose of the government card program and invites the possibility for fraud and abuse. The Senate's version of H.R. 3058, the Senate's amendment to H.R. 3058, included a provision that repeals the increase to the micropurchase threshold. My motion to instruct insists on the Senate provision that repeals the unnecessary and excessive increase to the micropurchase threshold. And the final issue, Mr. Speaker, deals with HOPE VI. The House bill funded the program at $60 million as a result of an amendment passed on the floor. The Senate funded this important program at $150 million. The fiscal year 2005 level for this program was $142 million. The HOPE VI program is vital to the rehabilitation of urban areas. And once again, Congress has shown its intent to support this important program, and my motion insists on its being funded at the higher level. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion that instructs the conferees to support the highest possible funding level to ensure Amtrak can maintain the current level of service; to recede to the Senate level for HOPE VI; and to recede to the Senate language in order to repeal the micropurchase cap increase that had been adopted in the second Hurricane Katrina supplemental budget earlier this fall. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Committee's reconciliation bill is a vicious example of misguided fiscal and social priorities. To pay for tax cuts that benefit almost exclusively those whose income is over $200,000 a year, the bill cuts assistance to families struggling to get by and pushes them right into poverty. The bill guarantees that more foster children will grow up in poverty. $4.9 billion is slashed from child support services. As a result, single mothers and their children will not receive the support payments owed to them, and many of those children will grow up in poverty. $844 million cut from food stamps will push another 300,000 children and adults in low-income and immigrant families below the poverty threshold. One in five children in this country already grow up in poverty. It is unconscionable to deliberately increase that number. For what? So that the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans can have another huge tax cut.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Visiting Nurse Association, Inc for 100 years of service and care to the community of Holyoke, MA. Officially organized on November 28, 1905 at the Second Baptist Church of Holyoke, the District Nurse Association, as it was then known, began raising money to bring nursing to residents who were unable to access healthcare because of their humble origins. In 1918, the association became incorporated and eventually, under the first supervisor, Emma Schenker, changed the name and became the Holyoke Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. In the early years this community-based nursing service evolved under the guidance of the National League for Nursing as a charter member. It established scholarships to promote the availability of nurses and found funding to continue the level of care needed for the city of Holyoke's blue collar workers and their families. By 1956, 51 percent of the Holyoke Visiting Nurses funding came from the United Way, then known as the Holyoke Community Chest. In 1965 the agency became certified by Medicare and Medicaid and later purchased property for a permanent residence, both of which further stabilized their presence in the community of Holyoke. The Holyoke Visiting Nurse Association went on to receive accreditation from the National League of Nursing in 1979. In 1984 they diversified into three affiliated subsidiaries so as to better serve their clients, and in 1990 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts licensed and certified Hospice Life Care specializing in caring for a patient's final stages of life. During the early 1990's the VNA, with growth of 20 percent, was given official accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Later in the same decade, because of service expansion to other geographic areas in the region, the VNA experienced unprecedented growth for a total of 211,334 visits and the serving of 2,912 patients by 400 employees in 1 year. With the beginning of the new millennium, budget cuts from Medicaid and Medicare caused the VNA to reorganize, reduce workforce and office space, and to freeze wages in order to survive. Then in October of 2000 the Medicare Prospective Payment System changed the reimbursement environment and relieved the financial constraints on the agency. Presently with advances in technology and the ability to monitor patients 7 days a week, the VNA is able to benchmark against State and national norms for quality of care and patient/customer satisfaction. In 2004 the agency received the Greater Holyoke Chamber of Commerce Pacesetter Award for Non-Profit Operational Excellence. In conclusion, the VNA for the past 100 years has maintained the primary theme of affordable patient care by making 2 million visits to over 30,000 patients. I am proud to recognize the Holyoke Visiting Nurse Association for their dedication and commitment to the care of the residents of this region.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, our country has been made brutally aware that there in fact are two Americas that exist in this country. Recently released census data shows that in 2004, 37 million people were living in poverty. In addition, this data shows that 1 in 6 children were living in poverty. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence of growing poverty rates and recent images of evacuees unable to leave New Orleans due to their economic situation, this Congress is proposing drastic cuts to Community Service Block Grants funding. CSBG gives funding to a vast array of programs, including senior citizen congregate meal sites, home delivered meals, transportation programs, job training programs, Head Start, energy crisis assistance, housing programs, education programs, and many other programs to address the needs of low-income families and individuals. The 50 percent cut to CSBG in the Continuing Resolution would have a devastating effect on evacuees and on low-income individuals. At a time when our country has been severely impacted by natural disasters, it is extremely urgent that Congress maintain CSBG funding at its current level so that the delivery of much needed services to low-income people is not disrupted. We have a responsibility to ensure that all Americans have an opportunity to share in America's prosperity. It is irresponsible that we approve a Continuing Resolution that cuts funding for CSBG by 50 percent below current funding levels when there is such an obvious need for the services that this funding provides.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the outstanding community service of Interprint, Inc., which for 20 years, under the direction of William M. Hines, Sr., has continually made social responsibility and community involvement a hallmark of the company. Mr. Hines recognizes the importance of building and maintaining a community presence which has become a keystone of Interprint, Inc.'s success as well as the City of Pittsfield. Recently, Mr. Hines has chaired a number of specialty events for the American Red Cross--Berkshire County Chapter (2003-2004), including the 2004 Fashion Show, which raised $10,000 to help disaster victims of Berkshire County. In addition, Interprint, Inc. has always been a pacesetter company for the Berkshire United Way Annual Fund Drive which supports the enhancement of the quality of life in our community through the support of non-profit human service organizations and their programs. Interprint also has supported the American Heart Association as a sponsor for the Heart Ball in 2003 and 2004 and the American Heart Walk in 2004. Mr. Hines was also involved with the Capital Fund Drive for Kid's Place in 1997 raising funds to provide an interdisciplinary, cooperative team approach to address the needs of children subjected to violence. The center provides a safe, caring, home-like atmosphere that coordinates the combined knowledge of law enforcement, social service, medical, prosecutorial, and mental health agencies to ensure an effective response to childhood trauma. Finally, I commend Interprint, Inc. on its 20th Anniversary, September 15, 2005, for the many years of community service that it has contributed to Berkshire County. I look forward to the many years ahead that Interprint, Inc. will continue to be a productive and contributing member of the surrounding community.

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do understand that the point of order lies, and I understand why my chairman has raised the point of order. I just want to make something clear on the record, however, that I believe that collection of tax is an inherent role of government, and if the point of order had not lay against the provision, I would have supported the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Connecticut. Given the ongoing reports of identity theft and lost data these days, I have come to abhor the very idea of putting private and sensitive information in the hands of debt collectors. It seems to me, as I have already pointed out, it is an inherent role of government to collect taxes. It is a fundamental responsibility of government. We shouldn't privatize this activity, particularly when it will cost taxpayers more money than collecting the owed taxes by Federal employees. For that reason, I would have supported the amendment, but I do understand the point of order as my chairman has raised it. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake