John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I offer this motion on behalf of the ranking subcommittee member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who has been detained. Madam Speaker, it has become obvious to all that chemical and biological warfare is a clear and present danger to our country. The two gentlemen who lead the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have recognized this fact for many years and have steadfastly worked to increase the funding for the variety of promising technologies in development to protect us from these weapons of mass destruction. We want, through this motion, to continue this. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a straightforward motion that all Members will be able to support. It instructs the House conferees to work toward the highest funding levels possible. Madam Speaker, as the ranking member for this subcommittee, I have visited many military installations with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), installations which are both on shore and offshore. We both agree that there is a tremendous backlog in providing decent housing, modern workplaces, and critical security for our service men and women and their families. The needs are well beyond the funding available in either the House or the Senate bill, but I strongly believe we need to get every cent available for military construction to the Department of Defense. I urge Members to support this motion to instruct. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we also are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a fair and bipartisan bill that deserves the full support of all the Members of this Congress. The chairman has done an excellent job with the resources that he has been given; however, we are looking at a bill that is $522 million, which is 5 percent below last year's enacted bill which of course was signed by the President, and last year's level was determined before 9-11. I think most of us would agree that in the wake of 9-11 there is much more that we should be doing, including funding critical force protection projects like perimeter fencing and better inspection stations to secure access to our bases, including building safer barracks for our troops in locations so they are not sleeping right next to the public highways, including providing security and protection for stockpiles of old chemical weapons while we get about the destruction of those stockpiles, and including making certain that we have the capacity in our labs and in our pharmaceutical supplies to meet multiple acts of biological warfare. Mr. Chairman, in the years that I have had the privilege to serve as ranking member of this Subcommittee on Military Construction under the excellent leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), we have made real progress in a bipartisan way in improving housing for singles and for families, in improving the workplaces for the men and women who serve America both at home and overseas. And this bill continues our progress. But because of the cut from last year's funding, it continues our progress more slowly in addressing the backlog of needs. Yet it does make an important contribution to our efforts to address the shortfall of military housing and making decent, safe workplaces available to our servicemen and women. We cannot continue, however, that progress if we face additional cutting in the coming years. Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to thank the staff from both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to put this bill together: Valerie Baldwin, Brian Potts, Mary Arnold, and Luis James for the majority and of course Tom Forhan for the minority. And I especially want to thank Suzy DuMont of my personal staff after years of dedicated service to the First Congressional District of Massachusetts. This will be Suzy's last MILCON bill. Suzy has served my district and this subcommittee well. She has been a valuable member of my staff, and I wish her all the best as the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Meehan) legislative director. I urge the Members of the body to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to support this open rule for the consideration of the military construction appropriations bill. Because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of this subcommittee, the underlying bill is a good bill developed in a bipartisan way, as he has always done in the years that he and I have served together in the positions of Chair and ranking member, respectively, of the committee; and I urge the Members to support this rule.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of America's children. The President's proposal for welfare reform reauthorization increases work requirements for parents receiving Temporary Aid for Needy Families, but it does not provide any additional child care funding. The research from the field of child development is indisputable: High quality child care promotes mental development and success in school. Under the current program, only one out of seven eligible children receives child care assistance. In my State of Massachusetts, there are 18,000 eligible children on a waiting list for child care assistance. Does the President expect the young children of temporary aid recipients and low-income working families to care for themselves? Does he expect parents to go to work when they do not have a safe place to send their children? The President's proposal will make what is already a bad situation worse. If we really want to reduce poverty in this country, we need to make a full commitment to the health and well-being of our poorest and most vulnerable children. Increasing Federal funding for child care will make it easier for parents to work, and it will ensure that children are better able to succeed later in life.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, each year, on April 24th, we solemnly observe the Armenian Genocide in order to recognize its occurrence, honor the memory of those who perished, and educate the public. We remember so that those who still choose to deny the genocide will one day begin the atonement process. More than one million Armenians were systematically abused, deported and killed from 1915 to 1923, between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of modern Turkey. April 24, 1915 marked the rise of the atrocities. On this night, the Turkish government arrested over 200 Armenian community leaders in Constantinople. Hundreds of similar arrests followed. These leaders were all imprisoned and summarily executed. Thousands of Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army were disarmed and eventually murdered. After Armenian intellectuals and soldiers were killed, the terror visited every city, town and village in Asia Minor and Turkish Armenia. By 1923, 1,500,000 Armenians were killed and 500,000 were exiled from the Ottoman Empire. There is no doubt that the government was intent upon the destruction of the Armenian people. Despite long-standing international recognition and condemnation, the present-day Republic of Turkey denies the genocide. As the first genocidal event of the 20th century, the Armenian Genocide was a precursor to the Nazi Holocaust and the more recent eruptions of ``ethnic cleansing'' in the Balkans. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish lawyer once said: ``The practices of genocide anywhere affect the vital interests of all civilized people.'' As citizens in a democracy, it is incumbent upon all Americans to remember the Armenian Genocide. It is my hope that today we reflect upon the moral and ethical questions that this genocide invokes and respond with this refrain: Never again.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend Robert J. Garvey, Sheriff of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, who is being honored this year by the National Sheriffs' Association as the ``Sheriff of the Year.'' The National Sheriffs' Association established the Ferris E. Lucas award in 1995 to recognize an outstanding sheriff each year for superior efforts made to improve the office of sheriff on local, state and national levels, and for involvement in one's community above and beyond the responsibilities required by the job. For his outstanding service and exemplary contributions to the profession, Sheriff Garvey will be presented with this award in June at the Association's national conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma. When you look at Bob Garvey's remarkable career, it is clear that this recognition is well deserved. After his appointment to fill the unexpired term of the late Sheriff John F. Boyle, Sheriff Garvey was elected to serve the citizens of Hampshire County in 1986, 1992 and 1998. He is a past President of the Massachusetts Sheriffs' Association (MSA), State Director to the National Sheriffs' Association, and Chairman of the MSA Education and Training Committee. Sheriff Garvey operates the Hampshire County Jail and House of Corrections, which in 1990 was the first in Massachusetts to be accredited by the American Correctional Association. At the time, the facility was called a `showcase-institution' by an Association spokesperson. The jail has subsequently been re-accredited every three years. This is a great accomplishment and a testament to Bob's organizational and leadership abilities. Sheriff Garvey also spearheaded the development of the TRIAD program in Massachusetts, in particular in Hampshire and Franklin Counties. TRIAD is a crime prevention program focused on addressing the safety and consumer protection needs of seniors. Along with Sheriff Macdonald of Franklin County, District Attorney Scheibel and local police departments, Sheriff Garvey and his deputies work with seniors and protective service agencies to reduce the vulnerability of older citizens to crime. This successful local program led to Sheriff Garvey's being named Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National TRIAD Corporation. Once again, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commend Bob Garvey on this high honor from the National Sheriff's Association. We should all aspire to his level of professional and civic dedication.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service contributions of Mr. Les Campbell of Belchertown, MA. Mr. Campbell's work as a nature and wildlife photographer is well known in Massachusetts' First District and throughout New England. In addition to founding several photography organizations and serving as an active or honorary member of countless others, Mr. Campbell is a tireless resource for the young photographers with whom he enjoys sharing his knowledge. Mr. Campbell, now retired, was a lifelong government employee at the Quabbin Reservoir. He has been a champion for keeping that magnificent body of water untouched by development. On March 29, 2002 The Valley Portfolio, a community photographic resource center in Springfield, MA will present to Mr. Campbell a lifetime achievement award at a reception. On this day, members of our community will gather to celebrate his contributions and accomplishments. Mr. Campbell's awards and citations could fill a gallery. He may be the only photographer ever to receive four awards from the Photographic Society of America: (1) the Buxton Award (1958) as the world's leading exhibitor of nature prints that year, (2) the Stuyvescent Peabody Award (1972) as ``the PSA member who has contributed the most to pictorial photography,'' (3) the Victor H. Scales award (1973) for ``diligent and meritorious service to photography and the Society and especially for his untiring efforts to teach and interest young people in photography and the arts,'' and (4) the Appreciation Award (1981), the Society's highest award and the only one selected by its officers. Mr. Campbell's organizational skills are legendary among those who have served alongside him in the various clubs and organizations he founded to which he belonged. In 1967 he originated Focus: Outdoors, an annual three-day environmental conference that drew as many as 1,000 participants. Mr. Campbell was named an honorary member of the New England Camera Club Council in 1968, that organization's highest award. As president of the New England Camera Club Council he took a sleepy organization with only 13 member clubs and increased that number to 83, increased the council's treasury from less than $25 to more than $7,000, and created a weekend conference at the University of Massachusetts that grew from 300 to 2,000 participants in five years. Most recently, Mr. Campbell began the Pioneer Valley Photographic Artists, a group of talented photographers committed to elevating photography's role as a fine art. Mr. Campbell's skills also extend to the mechanical side of photography. He invented the Vis-0-Tray slide storage and editing system in the 1960s to facilitate organizing slides for presentations. To photograph water skiers, he created a special platform on the towboat that has since been copied by other photographers. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank Mr. Les Campbell for his creative and positive influence on the art of photography in our community.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the valuable service of the Fitchburg Sportsmen's Club of Fitchburg, Massachusetts, located in north Worcester County at the eastern end of my district. On March 4, 2002, the Fitchburg Sportsmen's Club will hold its 125th annual banquet celebrating a long and impressive record of serving the local community. The Fitchburg Sportsmen's Club first met in the late 19th century to organize sportsmen, hold competitions and promote responsible gun ownership. Since then, the Club has continued these activities, and its members have used the Club as a platform to discuss important issues affecting gun owners and the public. There is evidence that the Club originated for the purpose of supporting laws to preserve and protect fish and game, thereby helping to maintain the environmental integrity of the Commonwealth. The Club has also worked with local law enforcement and community leaders to promote gun safety, provide instruction for gun owners, and promote responsible gun etiquette. Through its varied activities, the Sportsmen's Club has proven to be an influential and beneficial voice in the city of Fitchburg. As the Club reflects on its past accomplishments, I encourage its members to continue their role as instructors and community organizers.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant 1st Class Daniel Henry Petithory. Sergeant Petithory was killed December 5, 2001, while serving in the Army's Fifth Special Forces Group near Kandahar, Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was one of the first military casualties of the conflict in Afghanistan. Sergeant Petithory was born and raised in Cheshire, MA, in northern Berkshire County. A graduate of Hoosac Valley High School, he enlisted in the Army upon graduating from high school in 1987. He attended Air Assault School at Fort Rucker, AL, and later served as a military police officer stationed at Fort McClelland, AL. He was a member of the special reaction team at Fort McClelland. Sergeant Petithory served in contingency operations in Kuwait, Haiti, Africa, and throughout southwest Asia. He became a Green Beret, and at the time of his death he was serving as a communications expert with the Fifth Special Forces Group stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. He leaves behind his parents, Louis and Barbara Petithory of Cheshire, a brother, Michael, and a sister, Nicole. Our Armed Forces were deployed to Afghanistan in our struggle against international terrorism, Daniel Petithory died to help bring freedom to the Afghan people, and he fought to guarantee the peace and security for all American citizens. Daniel Petithory's death is a great loss for his hometown and his country. America owes him a tremendous debt for his work protecting our Nation and fighting terrorism. Sergeant Petithory's willingness to risk his life in service to his country demonstrates his courage and patriotism. His heroism will not be forgotten.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Fattah for their hard work on this bill, they have given us the best bill in years. However, while the bill is greatly improved I cannot in good conscience support the gratuitous and mean spirited restrictions in continues to impose on taxpayers of our nation's capitol. Over 94% of the budget that we're voting on today is City tax revenue locally raised. It's one thing for Members to decry the use of their constituents' tax dollars for purposes they find distasteful, but to subject local DC taxpayers to the politics of far flung districts is simply disgraceful. What's worse is that the people who we are pushing around in this bill, don't have a vote in this House and under this bill they cannot use even their own locally raised taxes to promote their right to representation in this House. I am particularly concerned about the rider forbidding the use of local funds for needle exchanges. Washington has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the nation. Approximately one-third of reported AIDS cases occurred among injection drug users, their sexual partners and children. Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, the CDC, and the AMA are among the individuals and organizations that have endorsed needle exchange as an effective strategy to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Needle exchanges exist all over this country and nobody is suggesting that we alter federal law to forbid them. We are attacking one city's-- our Capital city's--efforts to reduce the spread of AIDS and leaving cities in the rest of the country to do what they think is right and effective in fighting that health epidemic. I cannot support the continuation of this policy, in spite of the progress we have made in the rest of the bill. I again thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work but I am voting no on this conference report.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sue Ellen Panitch of Holyoke, Massachusetts for her outstanding contributions to her community. Since 1965, Ms. Panitch has been somewhat of a ``super- volunteer'' in Holyoke, having served on numerous boards and commissions, including the Conservation Commission, the Holyoke Community College Foundation, The Therapeutic Equestrian Center, The Future Begins Here, the Council of Human Understanding and the Holyoke Taxpayers Association. Sue Ellen began her long career as a volunteer at the gift shop at Providence Hospital, and continues to this day to be one of Holyoke's greatest civic champions. Just last month, through Sue Ellen's efforts, the ``911 Fund,'' created by the Holyoke Firefighters union--Local 1693, became eligible to receive a portion of the proceeds raised at the 2002 The Future Begins Here charity event. The 911 Fund benefits victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and their families. Ms. Panitch's dedication to creating a better community has been so remarkable that the Holyoke Rotary Club recently honored her with its prestigious William G. Dwight Award. I can't think of a more deserving recipient of this award, and I hope that Sue Ellen will continue to contribute so selflessly to her city. Holyoke is a much better place due to her life's work. Thank you Sue Ellen Panitch.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for yielding me the time. I rise today in support of the bill and to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for the leadership they have shown in addressing the Nation's critical transportation needs. I particularly want to express thanks to the staff for this subcommittee which has worked so very hard and put in so many long hours over the last couple of weeks but culminating in a fierce collection of hours over the last 48, and that would be the majority staff: Richard Efford, Stephanie Gupta and Cheryl Tucker and, also, of course, our clearly overworked and undoubtedly underpaid staff member on the minority side, Bey Pheto. They have put an enormous amount of effort into this, and I appreciate it very much, as I know all the members of the subcommittee do. Despite our constrained allocation, the bill successfully makes critical investments in highway transit, aviation and the Coast Guard. And I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the excellent provisions related to Mexican trucks. This will ensure the safety of our highways, or help to ensure the safety at least of our highways, as was so very important. I am also pleased we were able to delete an anti-environmental rider on global warming that was included in the original House bill. There is now overwhelming, peer-reviewed, sound, scientific evidence that global warming is occurring and substantially due to human influence. The National Academy of Science has very recently reaffirmed that fact. But one does not have to look at anecdotal evidence, just look at the exceedingly unusual weather here in November. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work in removing this rider. It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, a major hallmark of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), which was passed by the Congress in 1998 by overwhelming margins, was that for the first time receipts into the Highway Trust Fund were guaranteed to be spent for transportation purposes. This is accomplished through the annual calculation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which makes adjustments in obligations to compensate for actual receipts into the Trust Fund versus the estimated authorization included in TEA 21 for the fiscal year. While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has for the most part upheld the firewalls in this Conference Report, I find the redistribution of RABA funds to be outrageous. Under TEA 21, RABA funds are to be distributed proportionately to the states through formula apportionments and also to allocated programs. This Conference Report is a radical departure from that and is a cause for great concern. It is something I cannot support. The Conference Report was available for only a couple hours before the House voted on it. However, a quick review indicates that nearly $1 billion of the $4.5 billion of 2002 RABA funds has been redistributed contrary to TEA 21. Specific TEA 21 programs, which normally are discretionary programs, have been increased well beyond what their proportionate share of RABA funds would have been if TEA 21 had been followed in this conference report. Of course, all these funds have been earmarked by the appropriators. According to the Federal Highway Administration, to pay for these earmarks, about $500 million will be lost for allocated programs and $500 million will be lost from state apportionments. That means states lose more than 11 percent of RABA funds from the regular formula program. Every Member who worked to get a high priority project in TEA 21 should take note. Under TEA 21, high priority projects under section 1602 should be included in RABA distributions. But, the appropriators have chosen to zero out RABA funding for TEA 21 high priority projects. This means that every Member with a TEA 21 project will experience a 13% cut in funds. If RABA funds had been distributed according to TEA 21, Members' high priority projects would have been increased by $236.7 million in FY 2002. Instead, they will receive no RABA funds. A look at what the committee has done to particular programs illustrates dramatically what has happened. The Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, which is authorized at $25 million for FY 2002 in TEA 21, should have received $3.3 million in RABA Funds. But, incredibly, the appropriators have given it an amazing $250.8 million in RABA funds. Could it be because this program does not require a State or local match and can be used for practically anything? A perfect pot of money to earmark. Again, a $25 million program has been increased to $275.8 million for FY2002. Under TEA 21, the Borders and Corridors program is authorized at $140 million for the fiscal year. It should have received $18.6 million in RABA funds, but instead it will receive more than $352 million in RABA funds. Under TEA 21, the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary program is authorized at $100 million for FY2002 and should have received $13.3 million in RABA. But under the conference report, the program will receive $76 million in RABA funds. The Bridge Discretionary program, authorized at $100 million per year, should receive $13.3 million in RABA funds. But, it will receive more than $62 million in RABA funds. Of course, at this point the term ``discretionary program'' is a complete misnomer as the Secretary has absolutely no discretion since all the funds (both the base amount and RABA) are earmarked. Again, all of these funds, which should be distributed to the states and allocated programs, have been earmarked for winners and losers. I have included two charts prepared by the Federal Highway Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation which illustrate the impact of this misuse of RABA funds. One chart indicates the amount of RABA funds each allocated program would have received in FY 2002 under TEA 21 and what they will actually receive under this conference report. The other indicates what the impact will be on individual states and the amount of formula funds lost. Mr. Speaker, this is just wrong. RABA was not created to be a slush fund for the appropriators. For the committee to take nearly $1 billion of these funds to earmark for projects they deem desirable--on top of the fact that they had already earmarked all pre-RABA discretionary funds--should not happen. This should not be a precedent for future years. And we will continue to review the Conference Report for other offensive provisions. With conference reports, our options admittedly are limited. However, I cannot stand by and let these egregious acts go by without at least commenting and acknowledging just what has gone on in this report.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding, and I too rise in support of the continuing resolution which is indeed necessary, and I hope that this continuing resolution, which is dated for December 7, will in fact provide us with enough time to finish the work that needs to be done on the appropriations legislation; and I have every reason to believe that that will be the case. I also want to speak to the question of what the rules for debate ought to be on the Defense and the supplementary codicils on the Defense Appropriations bill and to urge the Committee on Rules to make in order the three amendments that have been spoken of earlier that had been offered in the Committee on Appropriations yesterday and each one, debated at length and then disposed of. I want to speak specifically to the portion that has to do with the military construction budget, the area where I am the ranking member. One of the issues that is involved in the homeland security amendment which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered yesterday, has to do with our major, most important Department of Defense facility that deals with bioterrorism. That is right here close to the Capitol at Ft. Detrick, Maryland. All of the samples for anthrax testing in the recent anthrax scares, went to Ft. Detrick. And the number of samples they would not have seen in a whole year were handled there within a 6-week period at a place which is aged and inadequate as a testing laboratory and very poorly equipped. But that is the place where we test the samples, where we develop the vaccines to try to meet those kinds of public health incidents. If we had another agent, whether it be smallpox, or agent X, Y, or Z that was brought out and we were hit with that at the same time as we were trying to deal with the anthrax situation, that they struggled with so effectively during the past few weeks, that laboratory would be absolutely overwhelmed, far beyond its capacity to do the testing in defense of our public health. And part of the amendment which the gentleman from Wisconsin had offered yesterday having to do with homeland security began to correct that. It would put nearly $.5 billion into properly equipping and manning the office over there at Ft. Detrick so that they could do the necessary work. The other thing that was in that, which is related to military construction, is actually $400 million, or thereabout, close to it, and is actually much closer to the sort of thing that terrorists are directly involved with. We have seen the impact that dedicated terrorists can have on an open society such as ours. Well, we have also seen what happened in 1982, in Lebanon, when a dedicated terrorist was able to take a truck filled with explosives up to the very doors essentially of the dormitory where 200-plus of our Marines were being billeted and those Marines lost their lives. We are living under certainly very different circumstances from the circumstances before September 11; and we are an open society, we have acted like an open society, and many of our bases are very open kinds of bases. Anyone can walk right into the Naval Academy or West Point. Anyone can drive a truck, a delivery truck in there. We have never had to bother taking the kinds of inspection precautions that we probably now almost certainly need to take much more seriously. That kind of site is very much at risk for a similar sort of a situation that happened to our Marines in Lebanon. We have circumstances where there are major highways that go directly through the middle of major bases. I can name them in large number, but just a couple are in North Carolina, at Camp Lejeune, a major Marine base there, and at Fort Bragg, a major Army base in North Carolina. Those bases have major highways running right through. There are thousands of civilians, thousands of vehicles passing through those bases each day. There are places where they can turn off. We do not yet have in those places the fences, the gates, the barriers, the inspection places to deal with that. We are in danger at places like that, and dozens of others in this country. The amendment the gentleman from Wisconsin had offered would provide us with the money to do, in the worst cases, in the most egregious cases, not by any means all, we cannot probably in a matter of several years deal with all of the force protection problems in those kinds of places, but it would give us a major start in dealing with the kinds of places where we need fencing, we need gating, barriers, and inspection stations at our military facilities in order to be able to be certain that we can avoid the sort of terroristic effects we have seen in other places. All of this really should be pretty familiar to us, because all of these things have been done close to the Capitol, around our own buildings here on Capitol Hill, and our men and women in the armed services deserve at least the same kind of protections that we have been trying to provide for ourselves. In fact, right here, within a matter of blocks of the Capitol, there is one of those billeting locations used by Marines here in the capital city and close to us, which lies within feet, literally feet, of Interstate 295 and major highway intersections. And we need to do things to correct that kind of risk, to reduce that kind of risk for our military personnel. So I would hope that the Committee on Rules would make these three amendments in order, in order that they can be debated, in order that they can be fully considered by the full House and not just by the Committee on Appropriations. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do support the continuing resolution.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I am very pleased to be able to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), from the second district, and the successor to Edward P. Boland, and the dean of our delegation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), from the eastern part of the State. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and work of Congressman Edward Boland, who represented the Second Congressional District of Massachusetts for nearly 4 decades. Let me start by giving my deepest sympathy to Mary Boland and the Boland children for their loss of a husband and a father. I first met Congressman Eddie Boland in 1968. He had already served more than 15 years and was a force in the Congress. I, by contrast, was making my first run for political office as a Massachusetts State representative in a district that partly overlapped Eddie Boland's Second Congressional District. My first and most lasting impression of Ed Boland was his booming voice. He was speaking at an event in Granby, and I was certain that he could be heard all of the way to South Hadley. Over time I learned that Congressman Ed Boland was not just heard, but attention was paid when he spoke. He was heard all the way down the hall to the Senate. He was heard by Presidents at the White House. He was even heard at the Pentagon. This modest man with a towering voice commanded towering respect here in Washington, and he was a towering presence in the political life of western Massachusetts. Eddie Boland provides even now a model for Members of this House of Representatives to follow. Eddie Boland was known equally for his ability to tackle the most complex issues of the day, and his willingness to show simple kindness to anyone around him who needed his help. He rose to national prominence on a number of issues, particularly his authorship of the Boland amendments restricting U.S. involvement in the conflict in Nicaragua. Yet the people of the Second Congressional District remained his foremost concern throughout his long and distinguished career. When Eddie Boland passed away last week, everyone in the Pioneer Valley lost a friend. On behalf of the people of the First Congressional District, I rise to say ``thank you'' one last time to Congressman Edward Boland for his work and his service.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I did not realize at what point we were in this debate, and I came over as soon as I knew that it was going on. I am pleased to see that this motion to instruct has been offered, and I am glad to see that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has indicated that he has no problems with the proposal, with the motion to instruct the conferees. I think it is an entirely appropriate thing that we should be doing here; that is, asking for the highest possible level of transportation security funding. It goes far beyond just security for airports, although that is the area that, because of the horrendous events on September 11, has had the most attention. Clearly, we need better security in our tunnels, on our bridges, in our rail stations, in our subway stations. We will have to get around to that. But we have become focused, at least for the moment, upon airline security and the airports' security. Since September 11, the economy has been in a steep slide toward recession. There are at least 100,000 direct employees, direct employees of the airline companies, who are out of jobs, and that does not say anything about the many-times-that of other employees, often part-timers and such in the tourism industry, that have been affected by the steep slide in the economy. It comes because air travel is a major portion of our whole economic system. The airports are half- empty. Even in those that are running fairly effectively, we find the confusion that goes on in the security systems that are there. They do not know what to do because they never had any training, never had any standards, never had any real professionalization in the process; and that is still affecting them, even though there are fewer than half the people going through the airports today that were going through earlier, and we are expecting that we are going to end up with some of our airlines going out of business. Yet, we have had in, now, almost 2 months no law; with all the different things that we have done, nothing on the professional- ization of the airport security systems and not a single dollar to establish that kind of professionalization. Mr. Speaker, we really have to professionalize our airport security system with ultimately the responsibility for that being clearly in the hands of the Federal Government. It can be in terms of very strong management with features that are being talked about in the several bills that are here, but we really have to require a Federal uniform system to protect all passengers, or passengers are not going to return to the airlines and they are not going to return to our airports and our economy will still be in the tank. We have to expand the air marshal program. We have to develop new methods to modify cabin and cockpit security in our planes. We have to require extensive background checks of security personnel. And we need to maximize the use of explosion detection equipment. But at the bottom of all of that is that we must professionalize the personnel systems that are involved in airline security. It is more than a month ago already, it was in September, and here we are on the last day of October, that we held a joint hearing of the Senate and House Subcommittees on Transportation of the Committees on Appropriations, where we heard powerful testimony by the Federal Aviation Administration, the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General for Transportation documenting the utterly poor security systems that are operated by the airlines. As they operate in this country, it is the weakest system of any of our major Western countries, as far as I have been able to detect, looking at the systems that are available in Western Europe and in Israel; and ours is very like Canada's at the moment, or has been. Both the General Accounting Office and the IG extensively tested the security systems and found that screeners frequently failed to detect guns, knives; other threats at security checkpoints the IG reported repeatedly breached, and there has been a long history of that, document after document, stacks of documents showing that to be the case, breached security areas in a large percentage of their tests at major airports. Once they have breached the secure areas, persons who had gotten through what security systems were there could enter any of the planes. Well, why are those breaches, why were those breaches, so easy? Well, the GAO and the Inspector General cited specifically the very low wages and benefits of security personnel, little or no training of the screeners, weak to no criminal checks on the screeners, no uniform standards for screening and, interestingly, extremely rapid turnover which, in the testimony, indicated that the turnover ran from 80 percent at a minimum in the lowest turnover at one of the companies up to 250 percent and, I think, as much as 400 percent turnover. These are people who were working for no more than a couple of months and the minute that they could get out of that job, because there was no kind of standard involved and no morale on the jobs, would go on to something else. In other words, these were the largely dead-end jobs, the very deadest end of jobs that were being used in protecting the security of American travelers, and yet we have not really done anything formal in that period of, now, almost 2 months to make corrections in it. So we now are going to deal with that tomorrow with legislation. I think that the Democratic bill is much stronger in what it puts forward, because it does professionalize the security system and put the responsibility directly on the Federal Government to make certain that the security system is one that is reliable; and that may give people the degree of confidence that they need so that they can come back to the business of flying and the business of why they fly, whether it be for tourism or for business itself. We have had indications that some of the companies have pleaded guilty to criminal violations and yet they are still contracted companies in the system as it operates today. With that happening, with the failure to conduct background checks on employees staffing those security checkpoints, it is highly unlikely that we will get back the confidence of the American people in the air travel systems that we have and get our economy back running. So I am very pleased that the chairman is happy to support the motion to instruct. I hope that when we get finished with this legislation tomorrow that we will have the strongest possible, the strongest possible law in place that will protect the security of the American traveling public.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1814, which authorizes the Department of Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the combined Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett trails in Massachusetts and Connecticut for possible inclusion in the National Trail System. Before I describe this project in my own words, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), and particularly the previous chairman, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, and, of course, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who happens to be in the Speaker's chair today, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), along with all of the staff for the subcommittee and the full committee for so expeditiously bringing this legislation to the floor for action. Mr. Speaker, these identified and potential trails begin with the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail at the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border and continue southward within the Connecticut River watershed along the Mt. Tom and Mt. Holyoke ranges through Massachusetts and Connecticut, then connect with Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut and eventually end at the shore of Long Island Sound. Unique cultural, scenic, historic, and geological features of these New England trails distinguish them as worthy of this study and national recognition. The geological features are dominated by the steep volcanic trap-rock basalt ridges which rise more than 1,000 feet above the Connecticut River Valley floor in Massachusetts and Connecticut. These basalt ridges are the erosion-resistant remains of a 250 million-year-old volcanic activity. They define the route of the proposed National Scenic Trail and pass within just a few miles of major cities in Connecticut: New Haven, Meriden, New Britain, and Hartford; and in Massachusetts: Springfield, Holyoke, Westfield, and Amherst. The trails provide over 180 miles of recreational hiking and backpacking for nearby residents of the Connecticut River Valley, including rural and major urban areas. In a region of increasing growth and sprawl, these trails also provide important open space and wildlife habitat. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been co-sponsored by every Member of this House who has part of the trail passing through their district and has the support of local communities, conservation groups, and constituents. In Massachusetts, I would like to thank Pat Fletcher and Chris Ryan of Berkshire Chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club and Peter Westover at the Amherst Conservation Commission for their dedication to the project. In Connecticut, I would like to recognize the work of Ann Colson and Patty Pentergast at the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association, which is the organization that runs all of the public trail system managed by the State of Connecticut. Other groups that have supported this effort include the Nature Conservancy, the New England Wildflower Organization, the Trustees of Reservation in Massachusetts, and the Kestrel Trust in the Connecticut River Valley. These citizens and hundreds of other volunteers and paid staff work hard to maintain and protect these trails. Through this legislation, I, and the other sponsors of the bill, hope to provide additional resources and opportunities for the good work that all of those citizens and volunteers and organizations do. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 1814.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I have only reserved the right to object here in order to give the gentleman from Ohio an opportunity to explain what we are doing here.

Mr. OLVER. I continue to yield under my reservation.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman on my reservation.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).