John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I do.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is one of those that proposes to add $500 million or nearly that sum of money, in my case exactly $500 million, to this legislation for Amtrak and would bring their total funding to $1.4 billion. The amendment does this by reducing the size of the tax cut for those earning more than $1 million of taxable income by less than 3 percent, from an average of $88,000 to an average of $85,500 or about $2,500 on average, which represents less than 3 percent of the size of that tax reduction. The chairman has already reserved a point of order, and I would like to just point out that I would have supported the amendment being offered by the gentleman from New York, who is the chairman of the Railroads Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, had it not been for the way the offsets come. So here we are with a substantial number of people, and it probably comes to all of those 220 Members, both Republicans and Democrats, a good smattering of both parties, who sent a letter to appropriators asking for support for requests of $1.8 billion for Amtrak; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and I in two different ways have offsets that neither he could support mine nor could I support his, but it goes to show that there is a substantial number of people who really do believe in the concept of a national passenger rail system, and that is not what we are going to have in the direction that we are going. I just want to comment also that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) of the Subcommittee on Aviation has indicated, and I think this is what I heard, that he thinks it would be appropriate to do perhaps as much as a $90 billion program on high-speed rail, and I am a supporter of high-speed rail as well and will probably if we get the opportunity vote for that because high-speed rail in appropriate places is something that might well be done. But high-speed rail is never going to be a substitute for a national passenger rail system. That is not possible under high-speed rail, and I would point out that if we are talking about doing $90 billion in capital funding for a high-speed rail system, which under circumstances I certainly will support, we are now talking about instead being unable to provide merely the $1.5 billion per year which the transportation IG, Ken Mead, says is necessary to make our present effort at a national passenger rail system function. So we have to keep in mind that we are talking about a huge sum of money for doing some high-speed rail when we cannot even figure out how to do a national passenger rail system which would on a per-year basis cost no more than 10 percent of what is being proposed for a high-speed rail program, a set of initiatives that will not come anywhere close to providing for such a national passenger rail system. My amendment, with the increase to $1.4 billion a year, would provide money so that Amtrak can begin to tackle the years of deferred maintenance and inadequate capital investment that has been the history of Amtrak for quite a number of years, and I would just point out that no large private or public intercity passenger rail system in the world has been profitable or been able to survive without substantial public subsidy. When national governors no longer want to support such intercity rail service, the rail service disappears; and Amtrak was created because private companies were unable to make a profit on passenger rail. And if we believe in a national passenger rail system, then we are going to have to start by dealing with a national passenger rail system.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to accept the amendment as well.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment. The IRS has started, has already started an earned income tax credit pilot program that will require 45,000 EITC recipients in the 2003 taxable year to precertify their eligibility before they can claim the tax credit. Without examining the results of that pilot and whatever impacts that precertification program would have on the participation in the program, and in fact the IRS has now slowed down their pilot project because of controversies it has raised, the IRS has included $100 million, and this budget includes that in their budget, so they can precertify not 45,000, but 2 million, households, and later increase that, ramp it up to 4 or 5 million households thereafter. Under the IRS proposal, 25 to 30 percent of all low-income working families that receive the EITC would be subject to the precertification. Well, that sounds like being guilty until you can prove yourself innocent to me. Clearly, this money would be better spent investigating high-yielding audits of midsize and large corporations. Let me remind my colleagues that the EITC is a tax credit program for the working poor, a program which former President Ronald Reagan called our most effective program to fight poverty. It is not a welfare program. No other group of tax filers is required to precertify 6 months before filing their taxes for tax credits and deductions. We do not require precertification for families and individuals that claim the child tax credit, home mortgage deductions, student loan deductions, lifetime learning credits, or any other tax program. Why target the working poor? Well, there is no question we should reduce illegitimate payments in the EITC. The highest estimates peg EITC overpayments at between $8 and $10 billion. Those estimates do not even take into account the tax changes in 2001 which are expected to reduce the overpayments by at least $2 billion. Finally, the alleged overpayments are a pittance compared to $132 billion in lost tax revenue for individuals, the $70 billion in lost tax revenue for offshore accounts, and the $46 billion in lost tax revenues for corporations. Again I ask, why target the working poor? Let us put our enforcement resources where we get the highest return. I urge an aye vote for the Cooper amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate what had been said earlier today by my colleague from Massachusetts on this same point of the expatriate taxation, that what was won within the Committee on Appropriations and what the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations attempted to protect was in fact lost by the actions of the Committee on Rules at a later point. I think that is unfortunate. Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), for their very hard work in bringing forward this bill. And I particularly thank both the staffs, the majority led by Deb Weatherly and the minority led by Mike Stephens, because the work of bringing forward the bill, the difficult work, is really done by them. I appreciate very much that the bill includes important increases in many areas. For instance, there is a $335 million increase over the fiscal 2003 base funding for the National Fire Plan, which is critically important to the Nation's ability to both fight and prevent catastrophic forest fires. And I think it is very commendable that we have a $240-some million increase for Indian health education and trust reform, while that still is probably a good deal less than is needed. Unfortunately, despite the positive aspects, and those are only a couple of them, the 2004 appropriations bill remains flawed in key areas. These failings include, first, a continuing policy of freezing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts at levels 30 percent less than provided a decade ago, despite repeated votes on the floor of the House in support of increased funding. Second, the rejection of the President's request to increase funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization program, which is critical in helping poor families reduce their energy costs and is funded at a level $63 million below the President's request. But most particularly, I regret the retreat from the committee's previous commitment to adequately fund conservation programs to protect public lands and cultural artifacts, to preserve endangered and threatened species, and to assist States in their own conservation and recreation programs. These conservation programs are funded at a level which is $208 million below the current year and $569 million below the level authorized in the Conservation Trust Agreement reached less than 3 years ago. These conservation programs include, and I will just mention a couple, the Forest Legacy Program, where 93 Members of the House wrote the committee in support of the Forest Legacy Program. These 93 Members asked for an increase from $68 million to $158 million. Instead, this bill funds Forest Legacy grants to the States at $45 million, which is a level 30 percent less, lower, than last year. Secondly, the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund where 225 Members of the House wrote the committee and encouraged us to increase funding for the Wetlands Conservation Program. Instead, that level is less than half the President's request. Instead of increasing the program modestly, we have in fact cut it by a third. The Stateside Assistance Program which is funded at $98 million, about a 40 percent reduction from the President's request, and the Urban Parks Program where no funding is provided. The Urban Parks Program has been in place for 30 years, and it was zeroed out. It was part of the same CARA agreement made 3 years ago which is not being maintained under this bill. I certainly hope I will be able to vote for this legislation after the final conference report. It is my intent to do so if some of these failings have been corrected along the way.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas for bringing this particularly important issue before us because this plan is a particularly cynical plan as far as it affects rural districts around America. People do not usually think of my Massachusetts district in the western and northwestern part of the State of Massachusetts as being a rural district, but it is in fact that. Mr. Speaker, rural seniors like all seniors need help now paying for their prescription drugs. The Republican leadership's prescription drug plan leaves seniors waiting 3 years more for relief. But by 2006 when it finally goes into effect, this ingeniously devious legislation still will not give rural seniors a prescription drug benefit because there will not be a prescription drug plan available for them to access. The Republican leadership claims this plan will provide choice for all Medicare beneficiaries. The Republicans say that seniors all across the country including rural areas will have access to two different prescription drug plans, one, a private HMO health plan which includes prescription drugs, and, two, a prescription-only plan offered by a private insurance company but deliberately not a part of the Medicare that seniors trust. Rural seniors know that private insurers are not going to offer such plans at an affordable price. The evidence is clear. The Medicare+Choice program shows how private HMO's role in Medicare has failed in rural areas. These Medicare HMOs have abandoned millions of Medicare recipients living in rural districts like mine all over this country. Currently four out of five seniors in rural areas have no access to an HMO managed care plan under Medicare leaving rural seniors with no choice. Why have HMOs abandoned the rural areas? It does not take an economist to figure that out. With the sparse populations in rural areas, these private HMOs could not turn a big enough profit; so they had no compelling reason to stay and provide services. Since Republican leadership knows rural seniors will not fall for promises of Medicare HMOs again, they have also provided the choice of a prescription-only benefit provided by private insurance companies while allowing seniors to stay in the Medicare that they do trust. But this legislation makes a promise of insurance that does not currently exist and can never exist in any affordable form for the exact same reason that HMO insurance plans could not make a profit in rural areas. Prescription drug costs are exorbitantly high; yet the Republican leadership expects that private insurers will be eager to provide this prescription-only benefit to the segment of the population that uses the most prescription drugs but has the least available cost. There are no incentives for the insurance industry to provide this benefit. In the end the high premiums and high costs will fall to seniors who will be left with the same exorbitant drug costs they currently pay. Worst of all, by the year 2010, the Republican leadership is determined to undermine Medicare and eliminate the fee for service program so Medicare can be exclusively run like an HMO. This will leave no choice whatsoever because rural seniors will have neither of the plans they have been promised. The Republican leadership is placing the lives of our rural seniors in the hands of insurance companies that they do not and cannot trust, who have abandoned them in the past but in reality by 2006 the promises being made now to rural seniors to provide a prescription drug benefit and a Medicare HMO choice will never be kept. Rural seniors will have no choice. There will be no private insurance providers riding to the rescue, and rural Medicare beneficiaries will still pay the same exorbitant drug costs they now pay. The Republican bill nullifies every promise to take care of our poorest and sickest seniors. It is a sham and a cruel hoax for rural America. And I want to again thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his leadership in bringing this issue before the floor this evening.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1298 is the best bill the full House has ever considered on the international HIV/AIDS crisis. This bill provides $1.7 billion in fiscal 2004 to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Our support for the Global Fund demonstrates American commitment to the international fight against HIV/AIDS and is vital for gaining funds from other donor countries. In his State of the Union address President Bush announced his 5-year plan to fight HIV/AIDS but he only allotted $200 million each year to the Global Fund. This bill greatly increases the U.S. commitment to the Global Fund. As HIV/AIDS ravages Africa, the Caribbean and now explodes in Asia and the former Soviet Union, clearly no single nation has the ability to prevent the spread of AIDS or to adequately treat its victims. This international disease must be stopped with international and multi- lateral action. Mr. Speaker, we must support this bill and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. It is the least we can do.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call your attention to the story of a citizen of the First Congressional District of Massachusetts, State Trooper Scott McDonald. Recently, the Massachusetts State Police awarded Scott a Medal of Lifesaving, an honor bestowed upon Troopers who undertake significant actions in the saving of another life. During patrol on August 4, 2002, Trooper McDonald responded to a motor vehicle accident in the town of Deerfield. He arrived at the scene to find a truck overturned on the road. The driver was unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. Immediately, Scott administered CPR on the accident victim. While performing resuscitation, a passing motorist stopped, identified herself as a doctor and said she would pronounce the victim dead. However, Trooper McDonald continued lifesaving efforts. Amazingly, the driver was ultimately revived and flown to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. Mr. Speaker, Trooper McDonald is a fine example of the Commonwealth's outstanding first responder community. Troopers like Scott are especially important in the First Congressional District, as many of the towns rely on the State Police for their emergency and law enforcement needs. I join the Massachusetts State Police, the City of Holyoke, and Scott's family and friends in honoring Massachusetts State Trooper Scott McDonald.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we should raise CAFE standards because that would reduce this Nation's dependence on foreign oil and reduce America's contribution to global warming. Cars and light trucks consume 40 percent of the oil we use and emit 20 percent of the carbon dioxide we produce. And CO2 is the major cause of global warming. It is embarrassing that we have not significantly raised CAFE standards in a decade, when the technology is so readily available. Overall fuel efficiency has declined as SUVs have grown to nearly 50 percent of the market, and the situation is certain to get worse as supersized, unregulated SUVs penetrate the market. The amendment before us requires a 5 percent reduction in oil usage by cars and light trucks by 2010. It would save half a million barrels of oil every day and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 90 million tons every day. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehlert-Markey amendment. I would like to thank the distinguished chair of the Science committee and the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing this important amendment to the floor today. We should raise CAFE standards because that would reduce this nation's dependence on foreign oil and reduce America's contribution to global warming. Cars and light trucks consume 40 percent of the oil we use and emit 20 percent of the carbon dioxide we produce. And CO2 is the major cause of global warming--the single most critical environmental issue facing us. The consensus among the world's leading scientists warn that over this century, CO2 levels will double. Seas levels are already rising, and glaciers are melting. It's embarrassing that we have not significantly raised CAFE standards in a decade, when the technology is so readily available. Overall fuel efficiency has declined, as SUVs have grown to nearly 50 percent of the market. And the situation is certain to get worse, as supersized, unregulated SUVs--those over 8,500 pounds--penetrate the market. The amendment before us requires a 5 percent reduction in oil usage by cars and light trucks by 2010. It would save half a million barrels of oil every day and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 90 million tons every day. I personally hope that this debate today will encourage automakers to rapidly replace the outdated, low efficiency technology so embedded in the cars and trucks we drive. The National Academy of Sciences report issued in July of 2001 demonstrates that the technologies already exist to take us even further than this modest amendment would require. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehlert-Markey amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge solves none of our energy problems. Development will take a decade and cannot provide more than 2 percent of our oil need. Drilling in ANWR is bad energy policy, but it is terrible environmental policy. ANWR is a fragile ecosystem, and drilling in this environmentally sensitive area risks one of our national treasures. We currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil, but only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves are located within the U.S. So we cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. ANWR is neither a short-term nor a long-term solution to our energy needs. For the long haul, our national security and the security of our world depends on using less fossil fuel. We need a crash program of research and development for renewable and nonpolluting sources of energy, but the majority blocked such amendments. Instead, this bill gives us more of the same, billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries and new threats to the environment. I urge my colleagues to think: 2,000 acres is this amendment; 1,800 acres is the New Jersey Turnpike. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the community spirit of the Amherst Regional High School Boys Basketball Team of Amherst, Massachusetts and congratulate them on winning the 2003 Massachusetts State Championship for Boys Division I Basketball. The team had a remarkable season this year and their accomplishment is well deserved. They finished with a record of 21-4 and the state title win was the first ever for the Amherst Boys Basketball Team. These talented young men pulled together and worked as a team to defeat an admirable and previously unbeaten foe in Central Catholic of Lawrence, Massachusetts. Each player put aside personal goals and focused intently on their common aim--to be the best in Massachusetts High School Basketball. I also want to acknowledge their coach, Jim Matuszko, and the excellent leadership he has provided since becoming Head Coach five years ago. Jim, an Amherst graduate himself, returned to build a team that has become the pride of the entire community. With a staff of dedicated assistant coaches and a great deal of support from students and parents, he created a model program. Jim's athletes are not only dedicated team members, but leaders in the community. Again, I congratulate the students and coaches of Amherst Regional High School on their extraordinary championship season.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the administration's budget cuts highway construction by $2.5 billion below this year's budget and slashes funding necessary to keep Amtrak running. The official House Republican budget cuts the discretionary transportation programs by 22 percent below the 2003 budget enacted just a month ago. The proposal before us is even worse. The administration claims to be committed to economic growth and jobs, but this administration has the worst job growth record since Herbert Hoover. In fact, the administration's record is job loss, not growth; nearly 2 million non-farm payroll jobs lost in 2 years. On average, that is 73,000 jobs lost for every one of the 26 months of this administration. Yet cuts in transportation spending loses even more jobs tacked onto that miserable Republican economic record. The Republican Party is only concerned about tax cuts for the already wealthy. When the economy is doing well, cut taxes for the already wealthy. When the economy is in recession, cut taxes for the already wealthy. When we are at peace, cut taxes for the already wealthy. Now while we are at war, cut taxes for the already wealthy. Their highest priority is tax cuts for the already wealthy. They are not paying for their war, not reducing their deficits and debt, not keeping their promises to leave no child behind, not providing health care for veterans and the elderly. Mr. Chairman, the already wealthy do not need more tax cuts. Vote no on this Republican budget and support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back my time, I want to thank all the conferees for their efforts in reaching this agreement, but especially our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). The two bills had very significant differences, and he has led us to a fair resolution that I think all of us can support. Mr. Speaker, I want also to thank the committee staff from both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to put this bill together: Valerie Baldwin, Brian Potts, Mary Arnold, Luis James, and, of course, Tom Forhan, on our side. Working together, they crafted an agreement that we can all support. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Saddam Hussein has been a menace to the international community. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people and in the war he started with Iran. Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations by failing to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and by repeatedly obstructing monitoring and verification by U.N. weapons inspectors. Nobody in this House doubts that Saddam Hussein is a treacherous dictator, but Congress has not been presented a compelling case that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to the peace and security of the United States that must be dealt with immediately. The President's resolution coincides with his introduction of unilateral preemptive military action as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy; and in fact, this resolution gives the President the authority to conduct a unilateral preemptive war against Iraq. That is a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. Such a strategy invites other nations to assert their right to use unilateral preemptive action outside the U.N. charter. In my view, a world where nations rely on unilateral preemptive force as a tool of foreign policy would be an exceedingly more dangerous world than we live in today. In asserting the right to use unilateral preemptive force in Iraq, the administration appears unconcerned about the consequences of an attack on Iraq, but unilateral preemptive force is virtually certain to further destabilize the region. Pakistan, a nuclear power, and Saudi Arabia, probably the most despotic Islamic regime after Iraq and the country of origin for 17 of the 19 suicide terrorists responsible for the heinous attacks of September 11, are the most likely to be destabilized. Such an attack by the United States against Iraq is a made-to-order event that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups will use to recruit poverty stricken, disaffected young men and women in these countries and throughout the Islamic world to their cause. Thus our unilateral preemptive action could threaten the peace and security of Americans and American interests around the globe. War with Iraq will clearly divert attention from the war against al Qaeda, which is not yet won, and from Afghanistan, which we and our coalition allies are committed to rebuilding. Furthermore, unilateral preemptive action would make the quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians more difficult. Were Saddam Hussein to launch weapons of mass destruction at Israel, Israel would likely respond with overwhelming force. Like many of my colleagues, I favor working through the U.N. to disarm Iraq by the strongest possible resolution, for unconditional inspection of any and all sites in Iraq and the destruction of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If Iraq refuses to allow full and unfettered inspections and refuses to fully disarm its weapons of mass destruction, military force may become necessary; but that action would best be sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council and be a deliberate, multilateral response to Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm rather than the unilateral preemptive action we are asked to authorize today. As all of us are aware, the decision to authorize the President of the United States to commit troops to battle is the gravest decision that we can be called upon to make. War with Iraq will bring untold American and Iraqi casualties. War should be considered only as a last resort after all possible alternatives have been exhausted by the international community. For these reasons, I cannot in good conscience vote for the resolution.

Mr. OLVER

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

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

Mr. OLVER

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