John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to address priorities that have been severely underfunded by the House leadership's budget. I will mention only two or three of those, depending upon the time, but ones which effect millions of people. The Obey resolution provides $500 million for the National Park Service, which has been forced to absorb huge unbudgeted items over the last 3 years, including natural disaster damage, competitive sourcing contracts, and antiterrorism requirements. The Park Service has been forced to cut personnel, reduce services, defer maintenance, and ignore resource protection. One million visitors every day to our national parks this summer are going to be the victims of that neglect. Second, for education, this resolution adds $1.5 billion in additional Title I funds toward keeping this Congress's promise to Leave No Child Behind. No Child Left Behind challenged America's public schools to achieve higher standards and promised Federal dollars to help. But Congress has failed to provide schools full funding. The budget resolution for 2005 falls far below the $20.5 billion for Title I grants authorized by No Child Left Behind. The $1.5 billion added by the Obey resolution does not meet the whole promise, but without it, we will surely leave more and more children behind.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today simply to applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for including the appropriation that was added in the supplemental portion of this bill to deal with the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. By adding $70 million in disaster and famine relief and another $25 million for refugee aid, we are addressing the most immediate and urgent human rights and humanitarian disaster in the world today. Mr. Chairman, the Janjaweed, a Sudanese Government-backed militia, is committing human rights atrocities on a massive scale in Darfur and the population there is in grave danger. Hundreds of villages have been razed, thousands of women have been raped and branded, and crops have been systematically destroyed. More than 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes and an estimated 30,000 people have been killed. According to the U.N., it will require $250 million to save the lives of the 2 million people that it estimates are now in acute need. The Sudanese Government has a 15-year record of curbing genocidal activity only when it becomes the source of public condemnation and exposure. By approving these emergency funds today, the House sends a message to the Sudanese regime in Khartoum that it must stop the genocide in Darfur. I again applaud the chairman and the ranking member for including this funding in this legislation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-Shays amendment. We hear of new homeland security threats almost daily. The President and the Attorney General have both warned that terrorists are likely to attack the homeland before the New Year. Terrorist networks continue to put commercial airplanes very high on their list of targets. And while great progress has been made in aviation security, we are still lagging behind in screening cargo carried on passenger flights. Currently no more than 10 percent of cargo on passenger flights is screened or inspected for explosives or other dangerous materials. This is a glaring loophole in our aviation security, and the legislation before us today provides too small an increase in screened cargo that is carried on such passenger flights. We need to reach full screening of cargo faster, and this amendment moves us in that direction. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Markey-Shays amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am following after two actions, the ranking member having spoken on the question of screening of cargo that is carried on passenger planes, and after the point of order that had been raised by the chairman of the subcommittee in regard to the full committee's ranking member point of order on the contingent reserve. Mr. Chairman, I think that what has just happened in regards to Mr. Obey's amendment is deeply regrettable. Mr. Obey's amendment focused on port and transportation and local first responder needs. It would have addressed the very thing that the ranking member of the subcommittee just spoke about. It would have increased the funding for screening of cargo that is carried on passenger flights by $117 million so that additional cargo could be inspected at a time when it is pretty well understood that we are screening, at most, 10 percent at the present time of the cargo that is being carried by our passenger flights; and I think everybody has a good deal of concern about that. The Chairman's funding for that is increased already, but this funding would allow a more substantial increase than what is provided by the legislation. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have increased port security grants by $100 million, and I remember in the debate here over the last day and a half that several Members have identified the issue of port security as opposed to cargo container port-type work as being an account that is most underfunded in this. Clearly, in this instance, we are funding less than 10 percent of the need that is in the area of port security. If it is not the most underfunded, it is certainly one of the top three most underfunded areas in this legislation. The Coast Guard itself says that our unmet needs are something like $6 billion to do the kind of port security that is necessary. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have increased the funding for border agents and inspectors by $214 million to plug the leaks in the northern border which have been shown where the attempts at entering into the United States have come, where we at the present time only have about two-thirds of the goal on the part of the Department of Homeland Security of what their goal is for those very borders. The Obey amendment would have provided $300 million to address bioterrorism preparedness, giving the Department of Homeland Security the power to utilize where it was needed on this contingency fund. Among other things, it would have provided additional money, about $86 million, into the Container Security Initiative to provide for increased staff to cover those very ports which are still risky ports, which the chairman has indicated that we are covering, are largest and most risky, but we have others that are of considerable importance in getting at the screening of cargo at the source before it comes into our own ports from across the ocean. So all of this funding would have been provided by a contingency reserve that was involved in the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, we should not be putting a price on the security of American citizens as close cut as we are, and yet this leadership has done exactly that by ruling the Obey amendment out of order. Mr. Chairman, we simply are not going to be able to provide adequate security on the cheap. I think that the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would have given us a good bit of reserve in this year when we are told there may be other attacks.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. The problem is that we do not know exactly how much will be distributed, and we cannot know because all of these categories are not purely by a distribution, and there is still an inequity because no State should be getting that much more than some other States, and the inequities that show up here are bad; but I do not think that we can be at all certain that moving another $450 million is not going to tip the scales beyond what most of us would then think was going to be fair. This is a case where what the chairman and the ranking member have been doing is moving in a right direction, it needs to be moved more; but I have not yet seen the formula that would show that what is going to come out of the result of this amendment being proposed would actually be better and whether we may have tipped beyond where it needs to go to be reasonably fair to everyone. So I think we ought to allow the chairman and the ranking member to continue to improve these formulas.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, it is 33 months past now since 9/11 and it is time for this Congress to coldly examine our progress in reducing the threat of terrorist attack. Even though we are spending a lot more money 33 months after 9/11, only a minimal percentage of cargo on passenger flights are screened for explosives. We do not require chemical plant vulnerability assessment and security plans as we do require for nuclear plants. We will have 20 percent fewer sky marshals in the air than 2 years ago. Thirteen million Americans use passenger rail systems each day, yet we have not taken appropriate steps to strengthen rail security. We have only hired two-thirds of the people that the PATRIOT Act mandated for protecting the northern border. We have invested only one-tenth of what is needed to protect our ports, and our first responders still lack the valuable tools they need to save lives. The agencies entrusted with protecting our great Nation seem to be in bureaucratic chaos. Just a couple weeks ago, Attorney General John Ashcroft of the Department of Justice surprised the Department of Homeland Security by announcing that a terrorist attack is likely during the next few months. It turns out they had not communicated with the Department of Homeland Security, and in fact did not have any particular new evidence for such an assertion. Problems like this keep coming up and they will simply not work themselves out. It is time for this body to determine the most critical security needs based on comprehensive terrorist threat analysis. We must fund those most critical needs properly and put an end to this haphazard, seat-of-the-pants approach to our domestic security policy. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, offered an excellent amendment during markup in the full committee, and he will offer a similar amendment on the floor today to add $1.5 billion to specific, seriously underfunded accounts in this bill. The Obey amendment will move us part way, but only a small part way toward properly funding our homeland security needs. Given what is at stake with this issue, we cannot afford to be funding homeland security on the cheap.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I notice that two members of the full committee are waiting, or at least one other member besides me, waiting to speak. We happen to have been brought up a few miles from each other in the State of Pennsylvania so I am not sure whether that just means we are both staying until the end. This debate has been a wonderful debate. It has also brought back nightmares of the debates that I think many of us have taken part in that sound like school aid distribution formula fights that we have fought through in our State legislatures all the time. But in all those instances, the one thing that has been available would be a distribution of how much money was going to go to each of the districts or each of the States versus what was being proposed, a distribution that would show what was going to be going to each of the States under those circumstances. In this case that is very difficult. What the chairman has done has been to move $450 million roughly out of the basic formula grant and put it into the urban area initiative or into the combination of other formulas. There is a basic formula grant and then there is a series of others which include transit grants, emergency management performance grants, and urban area initiatives. I am not sure whether either any one of those properly takes into account where we may have an enormous dam and a reservoir or whether it takes into account where we have very high-risk possible chemical plants or nuclear power plants. I am just not sure about that. I do not know particularly enough about this. But I know the chairman, and now I understand why he said in full committee that we do not know what the distribution is going to be next year. All we could see was what it had been in the fiscal year 2004 and what it would be like if you moved the $450 million out of that formula and distributed it proportionately as it was in 2004 into those other categories and then give it back to the same States in that proportionate distribution, into those other States. During the course of this debate, I have sat with that formula, with that chart that we had in full committee and done a few calculations. What shows up is that the States which have one congressional district, we all know exactly who they are, there are seven of them, they are ending up in the new formula even as it has been changed by the chairman in the work that the chairman and his staff have done, very careful and hard work, that what shows up is that those States end up with about $20 million per congressional district, a little bit under $20 million. About 18, actually, on average. The highest is $17.9 million and the lowest is $16.3 million. Then there is also a disproportionate amount of money that goes to States which have only two congressional districts. My colleagues know exactly who those are, too. There are five of those. They are getting between $9 million and $10 million per congressional district there. That is what that formula looks like. If you total up all 12 States, coming to 17 congressional districts, the formula as it would be so calculated comes out to be about $220 million that is going into those States. The same formula shows that Ohio, one State that has 18 congressional districts, is going to get less than half as much money. One State is going to get less than half as much money. My colleagues can compare what Ohio looks like versus what those other 12 States look like that are getting more than twice as much money in total than the State of Ohio. Oddly enough, that calculation also shows that the States, and this, I think, may surprise, that the States that get the least per capita, the least per population, are Michigan and North Carolina of all things.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this combined rule. This rule governs debate on H.R. 4503, an energy policy bill, and on H.R. 4517, a refinery revitalization bill. Everyone is well aware that H.R. 4503 is identical to the conference version of H.R. 6, which the House already adopted in November and is pending before the Senate. So that part of this exercise is a complete waste of time. With that said, in my view H.R. 4503 will do little if anything to achieve energy independence or enhance national security. I had and still do have extensive environmental concerns with that bill. I voted against that bill last year and I will vote against this rule and that bill again today. But I want to take this time to highlight one of the most glaring oversights of H.R. 4503, its failure to address the issue of climate change. Last night, I brought a bipartisan amendment to the Committee on Rules with the gentlemen from the First and Eighth Districts of Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and (Mr. Van Hollen). Our amendment would have done 2 things. First it would have required the development of a national climate change strategy with the basic goal to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere. Second, it would have established a voluntary greenhouse gas reductions registry and information system to provide data to be used by public and private policymakers to develop effective greenhouse gas stabilization and reduction strategies. If, after 5 years, less than 60 percent of emissions were being reported to the registry, emissions reporting by large greenhouse gas producers would become mandatory. Mr. Speaker, the facts are simple. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere. These accumulations are substantially caused by human activities. Temperatures are rising at the Earth's surface. All of these statements have been confirmed by our own National Academy of Sciences and by the work of thousands of international scientists and American scientists together through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Impacts are fully observable. The time to act is now. The amendment was really very moderate. This language was passed by the Senate by voice vote and it was included in the Senate-passed energy bill of 2002. It is a modest start, but at least it is a start. Not only was this amendment rejected, all amendments were rejected by the Committee on Rules. So this is a sham exercise and a sham debate. I urge a no vote on the rule and a no vote on H.R. 4503 when it comes forward.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 403. Sudan, geographically the largest country in Africa, has been ravaged by civil war for four decades. An estimated two million people have died over the past two decades due to war-related causes and famine, and millions have been displaced from their homes. According to the United Nations, an estimated three million people are in need of emergency food aid. Recently, violence has escalated in the Darfur region of the Western Sudan, where government-sponsored militias have been ruthlessly targeting various ethnic groups. Approximately one million civilians have been forced to flee their homes and are now either internally displaced or seeking refuge in neighboring Chad. Sudanese government forces have overseen and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians, burning of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land long inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. For months, the Sudanese government has restricted international media access to Darfur and has limited reporting about the conflict in the national press. Recently, the government has allowed minimal access to the region for international humanitarian agencies but has still failed to provide the necessary protection and assistance to prevent a full-blown humanitarian crisis. There can be no doubt about the Sudanese government's culpability in crimes against humanity in Darfur. With this resolution, Congress demands that the Sudanese government take immediate steps to reverse ethnic cleansing in Darfur before the situation there worsens and engulfs the entire region in conflict. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, should be commended for keeping the events in Sudan on Congress' agenda and I urge Members to support his resolution.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the spirit and civic pride that the Town of Orange, Massachusetts and its residents have demonstrated over the past 70 years towards the care and preservation of the bronze Peace Statue by Joseph Pollia. The 12-foot high ``peace statue'' stands in a small park in the center of Orange. Designed by Joseph Pollia in 1934, this sculpture received national attention when it was dedicated as a memorial to veterans of World War I. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt sent a letter commemorating the event and coverage of the statue appeared in the Christian Science Monitor. The statue addresses the need for world peace through its inscription ``It Shall Not Be Again'' and is said to be the only ``peace statue'' of its kind. It depicts a doughboy just returning from the war torn fields of France. He is seated on a stump and beside him stands a 10- year old American schoolboy carrying a book. The statue, which weighs 1,120 pounds, was installed on two granite blocks. Seventy years ago today this statue was unveiled as a memorial to the brave men of Orange who gave their lives to protect our country. It has also served as a beautiful reminder that peace is an alternative to war. The sculpture's inscription, ``It Shall Not Be Again'', could not be more timely as the nation once again honors the memory of young men and women who have given the greatest sacrifice to protect our nation and its citizens. In honor of our nation's veterans, I again ask that we recognize the national significance of this statue and thank the people of Orange, Massachusetts for keeping it safe for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the whole world now knows about the abhorrent behavior of American interrogators and guards at the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unaccountably, neither Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld nor Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Meyers, took the matter seriously enough to brief the President on the Pentagon report that there were numerous, specific instances of ``sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses'' by American prison guards at Abu Ghraib. The President knew since January that a general investigation into the treatment of prisoners was ongoing, but neither the Pentagon nor the White House acknowledged that investigation until this week when hundreds of extremely graphic photographs were made public. I opposed the war in Iraq in part because I was convinced that unilateral American military action in Iraq would lead to an increase in the number of terrorists. The behavior of American prison guards at Abu Ghraib will further breed hatred for the United States and sympathy for those who do us harm. The images of American soldiers humiliating prisoners in Iraq have caused severe damage to our efforts to establish Iraq self-rule and hold free elections. Our standing in the Islamic world is now far worse than it was even last week. I am convinced that two actions are now necessary. First, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld must resign. The events at Abu Ghraib prison were the inevitable result of the Secretary's policy of ignoring the Geneva Accords that govern the rights of prisoners. Despite overwhelming criticism at home and around the world, Secretary Rumsfeld insisted that the United States will no longer by bound by the Geneva Convention and decades of previous practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in foreign countries will be ignored. the Secretary's insistence on handling prisoners in secret and outside the law has led to an unaccountable regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured, sexually abused and killed. Second, there must be a comprehensive investigation by Congress into the treatment of prisoners of war. There must be an investigation independent of the Department of Defense, where the abuses occurred, that includes an examination of the role of civilian contractors and other civilians who may have played a role in the incidents of prisoner abuse. A thorough investigation by Congress would reveal the systemic deficiencies that contributed to such abuse. Among the questions that must be answered are: How widespread were these incidents of prisoner abuse? Were personnel trained adequately to do the jobs to which they were assigned? When did senior leadership of the Department of Defense learn of these allegations? Was their response timely and did it reflect the profound seriousness of this situation? The American people must have answers to these questions. I realize that congressional investigations will take months, but Secretary Rumsfeld must resign. By ignoring international law and insisting on a policy that allowed these prisoner abuses in Iraq to occur, the Secretary has greatly damaged our country's standing in the world and compromised our national security. America cannot win the peace in Iraq while, in America's name, some, however few, commit outrages, as part of the occupation, more akin to those attributed to Saddam Hussein.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Hope Fire Company of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, on its 150th anniversary. Their long and outstanding record of public service will be celebrated during their annual ball on May 8, 2004. On February 7, 1854, hardware merchant Erastus F. Russell hosted a meeting of 19 young men from the community. This meeting established Hope Fire Company No. 1; and with ``strong arms and willing hearts,'' they pledged to obtain and man a fire engine for the town. With great enthusiasm and support from their friends and neighbors, the Hope Fire Company was able to quickly raise the $1,550 needed to purchase an engine ``of the first class, of superior caliber, and power, with suitable fixtures to equal all emergencies.'' By June 15 of that year, the local paper reported that the company, now 80 members strong, paraded in full dress to the train depot to receive their new engine: a pumper and hose cart manufactured by Button & Company of Waterford, New York. That same summer, the company played a central role in the town's 4th of July celebration. They were grandly toasted during the ceremonies, and member Charles A. Sumner responded with a sentiment that still holds true today: ``May we attain such promptness and efficiency of action as shall entitle us to your confidence, so that when the devouring element threatens you, and all seems lost, the smack of our brakes may remind you that there is one Hope left yet.'' It has been 150 years, but the dedication and professionalism of the Hope Fire Company has never wavered. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the company on its anniversary.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Transportation Equity Act. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for their hard work on the legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to meeting our country's transportation needs, but it also addresses a very serious problem that many of my colleagues who represent rural areas face. That problem is the virtually total absence of broadband services in rural areas. The rural interstate corridor communications study included in this legislation will examine how fiber optic cable and wireless technology can be deployed to establish high-speed broadband service in rural and underserved areas, to improve intelligent transportation systems and homeland security applications, and to spur economic development in those rural areas. This important feasibility study is the first step toward increasing the access to affordable high-speed Internet services in rural areas. The benefits of this study will be of tremendous assistance to attracting technology-based companies and information age jobs to those rural communities.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I support our courageous men and women in uniform who are bearing the burden of this military action in Iraq. I am deeply grateful for their patriotism, and their sacrifice. Unfortunately, this resolution does not simply support our troops--it is an endorsement of this President's policy of unilateral, preemptive military action, and it makes the dubious assertion that the world today is safer than it was before the Iraq war began. Considering that the President's budget does not request a single dollar for the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or provide the health care and benefits that our wounded servicemen and women deserve when they come home, I find it deeply ironic that the leadership of this House is so eager to offer a resolution praising our troops but empty of material support. I would have happily supported an honest and fair resolution expressing support for our troops, but that is not what we are being asked to vote on today. The fact is President Bush and the Republican majority have not provided our troops in Iraq the body armor and armored vehicles they need to be as safe as they can be. The Administration has not explained its faulty ``intelligence'' to justify the decision to go to war or its failure to plan adequately for the post-war occupation of Iraq. The President clearly has not provided the Congress with an accurate accounting for the costs of the ongoing military operations in Iraq. This resolution makes no mention of the more than 550 American service men and women who have been killed, another 2,500 Americans wounded, many grievously, or the thousands of Iraqis who have died during this conflict. Nor does this resolution mention the more than 200 people killed just last week in Madrid, and those who have been killed in numerous other terrorist attacks since the war began. It is hypocritical and disingenuous for the sponsors of this resolution to claim that the world is a safer place while ignoring the fact that terrorist operations in response to our occupation of Iraq are occurring with alarming frequency. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I am happy that Saddam Hussein no longer has the power to abuse and slaughter his own people-- but unlike the claim made in this resolution, I do not believe that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was twelve months ago. Nor do I believe that we have provided our troops everything that they need to do their job properly. The resolution that we are voting on today is really just a reminder of what the Bush Administration would like us to forget from the past year--the hidden costs, the faulty intelligence, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the false claims of links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the rising number of dead and wounded--and I cannot support it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for rollcall vote No. 30, had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record and draw my colleagues' attention to the attached statement that was recently issued by a bipartisan group of 156 mayors from across the country regarding global climate change. These mayors represent more than 46 million people in local communities ranging in size from 700 people in LaConner, Washington, to more than 4 million in Houston, Texas. The mayors state: ``Mayors from across the U.S. are concerned about the impacts of global warming on our communities. Many of us are actively pursuing reductions at the municipal level, but know it will take leadership at the national level to slow the rate of global warming. We urge the Federal Government to focus attention and policy efforts on this critical issue.'' I encourage my colleagues to read the attached statement in its entirety. The mayors' statement serves as a reminder that Congress must get serious about addressing greenhouse gas reductions to minimize the impact of global warming already felt across our country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this important issue. U.S. Mayors' Statement on Global Warming 2003 Mayors from across the U.S. are concerned about the impacts of global warming on our communities. Many of us are actively pursuing reductions at the municipal level, but know it will take leadership at the national level to slow the rate of global warming. We urge the Federal Government to focus attention and policy efforts on this critical issue. Global warming poses significant threats to communities across the country. We are already feeling impacts in the form of heat waves, shrinking water supplies and snow pack, increased rates of asthma, floods and storms, and coastal erosion. The scientific community is very clear in its warning--we must act now to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions below current levels or we will quickly reach a point at which global warning can not be reversed. This issue requires an effective response from the U.S. Federal Government. Many local governments across the country have made it a policy priority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As mayors, we know that actions that promote energy conservation and efficiency, sustainable transportation (such as expanded mass transit, alternative fuel vehicles, and bike and pedestrian safety amenities) and reduce solid waste also reduce greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants emissions and bring a host of benefits to our communities. These actions reduce financial waste for local governments, businesses and citizens; they make our communities more livable; they increase spending and economic investment in our communities; and they increase the quality of life for current and future generations. In addition to these benefits, two other reasons have recently emerged that put reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the top of the policy priority list. The first is energy security. Switching to cleaner energy sources, practicing conservation and maximizing energy efficiency will ease U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuel-based energy, and at the same time improve local air quality and public health. The second driver is the simple fact that the people in our communities are calling on us as elected leaders to address global warming. A public mandate is emerging in cities and towns across the country calling for governments at all levels to protect the global climate. As Mayors responsible for the well being of our communities, we urge the federal government to maintain, enhance and implement new domestic policies and programs that work with local communities to reduce global warming pollution, Initial Signatories: Mayor James Garner, Hempstead NY; Mayor Ed Garza, San Antonio TX; Mayor R.T. Rybak, Minneapolis MN; Mayor Vera Katz, Portland OR; Mayor Dick Murphy, San Diego CA.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, western Massachusetts has long been known to all in the sport of field hockey as a place to look for the rising stars of the game. Wake Forest University was lucky to get two of our best, Kelly Doton of Greenfield and Kelly Dostal of Hatfield. I have no doubt that the successes both Kelly Doton and Kelly Dostal accomplished at Greenfield High School and Smith Academy paved their way for winning the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Championship. Their contributions to the Wake Forest team earned them both All-American honors. In December, the United States National Field Hockey Association named Kelly Doton National Player of the Year. This award came after an exceptional career at Wake Forest that included being named to the NCAA All-Tournament team four consecutive years and receiving the ACC Player of the Year award for 2002 and 2003. Kelly Dostal has enjoyed similar success at Wake Forest. The Hatfield, MA, native was the country's leading field hockey scorer this past season. Kelly is also the youngest player to have ever been named to the U.S. National Team. There is no doubt that Kelly will continue her long list of accomplishments in her last season this fall. I extend my congratulations to both Kelly Doton and Kelly Dostal for their individual and team accomplishments. Greenfield, Hatfield, and all of the First District of Massachusetts are proud of their acomplishments.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 1st, the New England Patriots won their second Super Bowl in 3 years. The Patriots' season was a testament to teamwork, dedication, and determination in the face of adversity. Bouncing back from an opening day loss, the Patriots came together to put forth a season that will be remembered as one of the greatest in New England history. At no time in the season did any member of the Patriots profess to be more important than any other, and at no point did the loyal fans' support wane, even in the harshest conditions. The New England Patriots are a shining example of all that is good in sports: teamwork, sacrifice, and humility. They are deserving champions, and I am proud to join my New England colleagues in co-sponsoring this resolution honoring the Super Bowl XXXVIII Champion New England Patriots.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. David M. Bartley, President of Holyoke Community College, as he retires after twenty-eight years of service. Under President Bartley's tenure the College's enrollment, budget, and number of employees all doubled in size. He was the driving force in the College's transformation from a small, local college into a regional, academic institution with a strong focus on workforce development and continuing education. When he took office in 1975, President Bartley initiated a long-range plan to create a thriving and growing college. His persistence resulted in numerous accomplishments over the years, beginning with the establishment of the Holyoke Community College Foundation. The Foundation was the first of its kind in Massachusetts and has allowed the College to permanently endow 50 scholarships for needy students. The College has also created and expanded programs and services for traditional and non-traditional students that have received national recognition. They include Cooperative Education, Women in Transition, a comprehensive Learning Assistance Center, ESL support, Community Service Learning, a mentoring program for engineering technology students, and a successful, federally funded TRIO program. President Bartley is particularly proud of the fact that Holyoke Community College has done an outstanding job of serving minority students and the underrepresented in our society. Today, 25 percent of the college's graduates are minorities, 70 percent are women, and 30 percent are men, the exact reverse from when he arrived in 1975. Holyoke Community College has developed a strong and positive image in western Massachusetts and beyond. President Bartley is in great part responsible for this evolution. He has brought consistent and healthy increases in enrollment and private sector support. He has forged winning partnerships with industry and mentored other educational institutions seeking to emulate his college's success. In assessing and accrediting Holyoke Community College, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges once remarked that they found the College to be ``dynamic, resilient and forward thinking''. Indeed, the exact same thing can be said for President Bartley and his years of leadership. I would also like to commend President Bartley on his distinguished career in government. Prior to arriving at Holyoke Community College, he served for twelve years in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. For eight of those years, he held the elected position of Speaker of the House. He was held in high esteem for his accessibility, his deep grasp of issues of public concern, and his sense of fair play. These qualities helped him make a dynamic transition to leadership in academia. He immediately put all his experiences and skills to work for Holyoke Community College and tens of thousands of graduates have been the beneficiaries. In recognition of an outstanding career in public service, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating President Bartley on his accomplishments and on his retirement.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Richard W. Cooper, Jr., a U.S. Air Force Major who conducted missions over Southeast Asia. Major Cooper was the navigator aboard a B-52D Stratofortress bomber out of Westover Air Force Base that participated in Operation Linebacker II, a bombing campaign in the waning days of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. On December 19, 1972, Major Cooper's plane was downed and he was listed as ``Missing In Action'' for over 30 years. Major Cooper was thirty years old. Recently, Major Cooper's remains were found, identified, and returned to the United States. His remains will be buried at 11 a.m. on December 19th, 2003 in Arlington National Cemetery. Through his service and commitment, Major Cooper was awarded eleven decorations that include the Distinguished Flying Cross; the Purple Heart; the Air Medal with two silver and two bronze Oak Leaf Clusters; the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award; and, the Combat Readiness Medal. In recognition of his life, the nation owes a deep debt of gratitude to Major Cooper for his courage, heroism, and exemplary service. Our thoughts and prayers are with Major Cooper's family in Holyoke, Massachusetts as they finally lay him to rest.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 280, which includes as title VI the establishment of the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage area in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Let me start by thanking the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her hard work on this initiative. It has been a pleasure working with her. During the 106th Congress, H.R. 4312 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the Upper Housatonic as a potential national heritage area. That study documents that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Interior Department's criteria for such a designation. The Park Service recognizes the valley as ``distinctive for having a landscape that includes a blend of industrial innovations, environmental conservation initiatives, and cultural achievements of national significance.'' The Upper Housatonic Valley includes 29 communities in western Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut. And I would like to highlight a few of the many contributions this region of New England brings to our national heritage. Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edith Wharton, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.; Norman Rockwell; Suzy Frelinghuesen are just a few of the prominent artists and writers who have made the Housatonic Valley their home and the subject of their work. Today visitors can see these artists' work on display as local museums before taking in a classical music concert at Tanglewood or visiting the magnificently restored Shaker Village in Hancock. The Upper Housatonic has a rich cultural heritage and thriving artistic community to this day. The Members may not be familiar with the name Elizabeth ``Mumbet'' Freeman today, but her role in our national history is rightfully recognized in the newly reopened National Archives ``Charters of Freedom'' exhibit. A slave from Sheffield, Massachusetts, Mumbet sued in Massachusetts's court for her freedom, leading to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts in 1793. Many years later the great civil rights leader W.E.B. Dubois made his home in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. His papers are archived and open to the public today at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. As I hoped to highlight today, the Upper Housatonic Valley is an area rich in culture, history, and innovation against the backdrop of scenic landscapes. Its designation as a National Heritage Area will help preserve this treasure for years to come. I urge an aye vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on this bill before us. The energy bill before us today fails to provide a realistic sustainable energy plan for Americas future. Instead, the bill includes environmental rollbacks, threatens public health, weakens key consumer protections against electricity market manipulation, and gives out billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. In addition, this bill missed nearly every opportunity to increase renewable energy development and energy efficiency. The rollbacks of two of our most fundamental environmental laws--the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are terrible environmental policy. This bill would allow more smog pollution for longer than the current Clean Air Act authorizes by allowing areas with the worst air pollution to have more time to cleanup without having to implement stronger air pollution controls. This bill exempts all oil and gas construction activities, including roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries and compressor stations from having to control storm-water runoff, as is currently required under the Clean Air Act. Early estimates on this bill show at least $25 billion in subsidies to the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries. Some estimates tally over $100 billion in giveaways to the ``dirty fuel industry'' including over $6 billion in tax credits for nuclear power companies, and $1.1 billion to build a new nuclear reactor in Idaho. It is reckless and irresponsible policy to promote new nuclear power production when we have yet to develop a safe way and place to dispose of the high-level nuclear waste we have already created. By comparison, the renewable energy industry received only crumbs--a piddling $3-6 billion for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass development. The Renewable Portfolio Standard included by the Senate, which would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, was struck from the bill. Tragically, this bill is a missed opportunity for job creation. The Tellus Institute estimates 1.3 million jobs could be created in the renewable energy sector. Instead, this bill only ensures we will continue to lose our technological edge in the global renewable market to countries like Denmark and Japan. What we needed was a bill to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our national security, but this bill won't conserve a drop of oil. We need to protect our consumers, our public lands and our public health, but instead this bill weakens protections. We needed to give a boost to the renewable energy sector, but instead this bill is a kickback to the fossil fuel indistry. I urge a ``no'' vote on this irresponsible legislation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the valuable educational services TeenAIDS-PeerCorps has provided for youth around the world. Over 42 million people throughout the world are infected with AIDS, and more than 7,000 children contract AIDS each day. Reports estimate that some 3 million children around the world have HIV or AIDS with an estimated 4,400 infected young adults between 13 and 19 years of age in the United States. Increased efforts to educate teenagers about the methods of transmission and ways to reduce their risk of contracting AIDS have helped to decrease the infection rate. TeenAIDS-PeerCorps, located in Boston, Massachusetts, was created in 1995 to educate teenagers around the world about HIV and AIDS. By sponsoring programs across the globe and utilizing the Internet, TeenAIDS-PeerCorps has influenced the lives of many youths. Since the inception of TeenAIDS-PeerCorps, almost 135,000 teenagers in 60 countries and 20 U.S. states have been counseled on the dangers of HIV and AIDS. Teenagers are encouraged to share their experiences and learn from their peers about how HIV and AIDS have changed their lives. For the past 5 years, Dr. John B. Chittick, a resident of Fitchburg, Massachusetts and Executive Director of TeenAIDS-PeerCorps, has been traveling on an international humanitarian effort to increase HIV and AIDS awareness. Dr. Chittick uses open discussion, stop-action improvisation theater, and a comic book to communicate his message to teens. The TeenAIDS-PeerCorps and Dr. Chittick's efforts have positively impacted and educated many youth. I applaud their efforts and urge the TeenAIDS-PeerCorps and Dr. Chittick to continue their domestic and international role as HIV and AIDS educators.

Mr. OLVER

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

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