John Olver

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, for the most part, this bill is an excellent bill, and I greatly respect the outstanding work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, and of the ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York. I rise to strike section 623, an anti-environmental rider, which is meant to prevent any and all action to address the climate change caused by global warming. Last week, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and I offered this same amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill which was graciously accepted by the Chair and adopted by voice vote. Less than 2 months ago, this House adopted a sense of the Congress relating to global warming, in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, and that sense of Congress pointed out that global climate change poses a significant threat to national security. And just this morning, the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from new York, removed this egregious language from that bill. I am extremely pleased to see that the debate on global warming, in the House of Representatives, is moving in the right direction. Regardless of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, there is 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. Placing a gag order on federal agencies can only stifle our ability to address this critical environmental issue--at a time when carefully considered, but comprehensive action is needed. As I explained last week, this rider is not new. It dates back to the Clinton Administration, when the majority believed with good reason that President Clinton would have acted to implement Kyoto. But President Bush has made it clear that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol. He has even declared the Kyoto protocol ``dead.'' So, if this Administration isn't even remotely thinking about implementing the Kyoto Protocol, what is the language that this amendment would strike really about? It is really about preventing any serious progress at all on global warming--our most serious environmental issue for the 21st century. The rider is used to badger federal agencies and to demand repeated explanations for their environmental activities. The Inspector General was recently forced to investigate alleged violations of the rider by the EPA, Department of Energy, and the State Department and found no instances of violation. This rider jeopardizes executive agency work on any and every issue related to climate change--which the U.S. is obligated to address as part of the United Nations framework Convention on climate change. Remember that the UN Framework Convention on climate change was proposed for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush in September 1992, ratified by the Senate in October 1992, and took force in 1994. Mr. Chairman, the United States has an obligation to be an international leader on global warming. We owe it to our children who deserve to inherit a healthy planet. The consequences of global warming will not be mild and we must being to act soon. The American public wants this Congress and this Administration to find a way to address global warming. How we do that, is NOT the subject of today's debate. This vote has nothing to do with implementing or even liking the Kyoto Protocol. I urge this body to pass this and all remaining Appropriation bills, free of this ill-conceived and unneeded rider. Allow our agencies to search for ways and measures authorized by the already ratified UN Framework to begin addressing greenhouse gases. I urge a yes vote on the Gilchrest/Olver amendment.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have is a simple one. It detracts nothing from the respect that I have for the chairman, who has done such a good job with this bill, nor of the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who has joined him in presenting what I think is, in whole, an excellent bill. But I rise to strike section 623 from this legislation, which, as indicated, would be a provision on any funding used for anything, really, related to global warming. I hope that this amendment would be accepted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his acceptance, and I thank him for yielding back his time. I do have two people who wish to make very short statements. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and want to recognize in general the leadership the coauthor on this amendment has provided on climate change.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment. We do have several speakers who wish to speak on it. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. I greatly respect the outstanding work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), but I rise to strike section 726, an anti- environmental rider which is meant to prevent any and all action to address the climate change caused by global warming. Mr. Chairman, section 726 is equivalent to burying our heads in the sand, and hot sand, at that. Regardless of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, there is overwhelming, peer-reviewed, sound scientific evidence for global warming. The National Academy of Sciences has very recently reaffirmed that fact. Placing a gag order on Federal agencies can only stifle our ability to address what will be the most critical environmental issue of the 21st century at a time when carefully considered but comprehensive action is needed. This old rider dates back to the Clinton administration when the majority believed, with good reason, that President Clinton would have acted to implement Kyoto. But President Bush has made it clear that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol. He has declared the Kyoto Protocol dead, dead. So, at the very least, the rider is unnecessary, and resuscitating it shows a lack of trust in the President's intentions and in the President's word, which I am sure the majority does not mean to do. So why has the rider appeared? Because it has been used to badger agencies and demand repeated explanations of environmental activities. The Inspector General was recently forced to investigate alleged violations by the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the State Department, and found no instances of violations. It is the President of the United States who will not implement Kyoto, who runs the executive departments. This rider jeopardizes the executive agency work on every issue related to climate change, which the U.S. is obligated to address as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Remember, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was proposed for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush in September of 1992, was ratified by the Senate in October of 1992, and took force in 1994. It states that, and I quote, ``The parties to the convention are to implement policies with the aim of returning to their 1990 levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.'' Mr. Chairman, the consequences of global warming will not be mild. If we do not begin to act soon, it may be too late to preserve our coastlines and our agriculture. The American public wants this Congress and this administration to find a way to address global warming. How we do that is not the subject of today's debate. This vote has nothing to do with implementing or even liking the Kyoto Protocol. But a yes vote to remove this ill-conceived and unneeded rider allows our agencies to search for ways and measures authorized by the already- ratified U.N. framework to begin addressing greenhouse gases. I urge a yes vote on the Gilchrest-Olver amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, who is showing every day great leadership on this issue of climate change. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, for the most part, this bill is an excellent bill.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and thank very much the chairman of the subcommittee for his indulgence, even after he had agreed to accept the amendment. We appreciate that very much.

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am rising in support of the amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, in part, I think, to clear up some of the issues along the way. The expenditure in nuclear programs is far beyond what we need to be expending in nuclear programs. That is as simple as one can say it. The increase in nuclear programs in this budget is by a very significant amount over the previous year when we have such great other needs. The amendment that the gentleman has proposed returns $56 million to the Treasury, which by the way is about similar to the amount that was involved in the amendment that had been offered by the gentleman from New York seeking only an additional $50 million for renewable energy research programs. It seems to me that that would be a far, far better way to use the $56 million that otherwise would be returned to the Treasury by the gentleman from Ohio and his amendment. I just want to point out, in partial reply on exactly the same amendment earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee was speaking about what the committee had done, and I do commend the committee for returning, on renewable energy sources, $100 million, which had been cut from the budget for renewable energy sources by the President's request. In returning that amount of money, they now have in the bill $377 million for renewable energy research and development, which is exactly $1 million more than there was in the previous bill. Now, I would just point out here that in the National Energy Policy Report that has come out, the policy report has at one point a statement that President George W. Bush understands the promise of renewable energy and strongly encourages alternative sources, such as wind, biomass, and solar energy. And in another place here the statement reads that ``renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for America's energy future.'' I do not think that it is appropriate to have only a $1 million increase in the accounts for renewable energy, commendable though it is, that the subcommittee has recommended $100 million more than the President had proposed, because he had cut so much out of what he is in other places here saying are such important pieces of work to be done. It seems to me that we would be far wiser to use money that might be saved from the NIF and otherwise, by the amendment, would return to the Treasury for something that would really significantly help in producing the kind of energy that we need for the future in renewable sources that does not produce global warming, CO2, in most of its forms, and produces very little, except renewable sources, in biomass.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly, because this bill is an excellent bill, and I respect very much the work of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as well as my ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), but I do take exception to the language of section 331. The language in section 331 is language which has been included several times over the last few years, at a time when it was legitimately believed by the majority that the President in charge of the executive departments would have conducted the very actions which are prescribed by section 331 in the present legislation. On the other hand, President Bush has made it clear that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto Protocol as it has been worked out, and has even used much stronger language, that the Kyoto protocol is ``dead.'' So, at the very least, the language is unnecessary and shows perhaps a disbelief in the President's intentions and the President's word, which I am sure the majority does not mean to show. I would like to point out that just slightly more than 1 month ago, that this House adopted in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which was passed on May 16, a sense of the Congress section relating to global warming, and that sense of Congress pointed out that global climate change poses a significant threat to national security; that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; that global average surface temperatures have risen since 1861; that in the last 40 years the global average sea level has risen, ocean heat content increased, and snow cover and ice extent have decreased, which threatens to inundate low-lying Pacific Island nations and coastal regions throughout the world; and pointed out at that time that the United States has ratified the United Nations framework on climate change, which framework, ratified in 1992 by the Senate, was proposed for ratification by then President George Herbert Walker Bush to be ratified and was ratified by the Senate and took full effect in 1994, that, quoting from that, ``the parties to the convention are to implement policies with the aim of returning to their 1990 levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses,'' and, to continue, ``that developed country parties should take the lead in combatting climate change and the adverse effects thereof.'' So, in that sense, we already have adopted by this Congress the language that I have offered in the amendment, which is a clarifying amendment, the amendment merely saying that the limiting language should not relate, should not apply, to activities that are otherwise authorized by law, nor to those activities that are authorized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change with respect to which the Senate gave its advice and consent; and we have a full ratification of that treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention. So my amendment suggests that the activities that are related to that framework convention as ratified in 1992 are in no way proscribed by the language of section 331. So it is additional language to limit the limitation or to explain that limitation. By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is my intent at the appropriate time to withdraw this amendment. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the House, that we have a series of activities that we should not be proscribing, that those which are formerly previously authorized by law and those that are part of the already ratified treaty of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should not be proscribed. So I intend to withdraw the amendment at the appropriate time.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief this time. In section 331, it refers to a limitation in the use of funds in this legislation to implement in a broad way, in any kind of way, the Kyoto Protocol, which has never been ratified by the Senate of this Nation, nor by any of the other major signatories to the original Protocol for that matter. My amendment merely says that the limitation which would remain does not include activities related to the Protocol which are otherwise authorized by law, nor activities that are authorized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the treaty that was negotiated back in 1991 and 1992, and sent to the Senate for ratification by former President George Herbert Walker Bush, and was ratified by the Senate and has the full force of law. Mr. Chairman, it merely removes the limitation from otherwise- authorized-by-law activities in this area. It is my intent to withdraw the amendment. Before I do withdraw my amendment, I know that we could probably generate a long discussion here, which none of us really want, but I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) if the gentleman would be willing to work with the groups that are obviously showing their interest in this and come up with something that might address these concerns in the conference that will come forward.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the service of John Quill, who served as meteorologist for WWLP Channel 22 in Springfield. Mr. Quill passed away yesterday. John Quill's face was one of the most recognizable in all of western Massachusetts because of his 47 years as WWLP's meteorologist. He brought both integrity and a human touch to weather reporting, and he will be remembered with great fondness for years to come for his hard work, dedication and distinctive personal touch. The entire Pioneer Valley feels a great loss with John's passing. Anyone who has lived through a western Massachusetts winter knows that we do not always have good weather, but, for nearly five decades, we had a truly exceptional weatherman. Thank you. John Quill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we in the Massachusetts delegation have lost our dean and our lodestar. I will always be grateful to Joe Moakley for helping to define my role in Congress. Like everyone in our delegation, I looked to him for guidance, and he reminded all of us to be true to our roots. Joe Moakley is gone, but he will never be forgotten. Joe Moakley chose to spend the last few months of his life fighting for the causes he believed in. He never yielded, and he never gave up. Joe served as an example and an inspiration both throughout both his long career and final days, particularly his final days, bringing determination and humor to every issue that he tackled. He leaves an impressive legacy. Whether Joe was working to increase funding for low-income home energy assistance or fighting to end the oppression in Latin America, the unifying threat of his service was that he stood up for those who were being overlooked. He cared for people who needed help the most. I am deeply saddened by his passing, but I feel lucky to have known him and served with him in this Congress. As long as there are Members of this body who fight for human rights around the globe and here at home for the rights of American workers and their families to live with dignity, Joe's spirit will be with us. The Nation will miss Joe Moakley. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?