John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding. It turns out that we are talking about a very similar sort of thing. I wanted to point out to people today that the President's energy plan utterly ignores a key fact; that if we are to put limits on global warming and the inevitable resulting climate change, we must cut back on burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, into our atmosphere. One of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce oil consumption is to increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Currently, cars and trucks guzzle 40 percent of all the oil used in the United States and they produce 20 percent of the Nation's carbon dioxide pollution. Improved fuel efficiency would protect consumers from higher prices at the gas pump, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and decrease carbon dioxide emissions. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), from the Republican Party, and I have together introduced, with bipartisan sponsors, a bill that would require light trucks and SUVs to meet the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars, gradually, by the year 2007. Once fully implemented, that would save the U.S. 1 million barrels of oil every day, reduce oil imports by 10 percent, and prevent over 200 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere every year. Before we consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or other ecologically sensitive areas, which could include the coastline of Florida on the West Coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, we should first use common sense solutions like improving fuel efficiency, by simply improving the gas mileage that our cars and trucks achieve.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the students of Williston Northampton School in Easthampton, MA for their excellence in academic competition. Under the tutelage of Mr. Peter Gunn, these young people have shown an acute knowledge of the Constitution and its Amendments, in particular the Bill of Rights. On April 21-23, 2001 more than 1,200 students from across the country were in Washington, DC to demonstrate their expertise in American government and represent their home states as part of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Education. I am pleased to announce the class from Williston Northampton School participated on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Gunn's students have taken a strong interest in the principles that govern our nation. Through their students, they have become aware of the founders' efforts to fashion an enduring republic. Through their accomplishments, they have shown a keen understanding of the political process, its participants and the laws that will ensure America's continued vitality. It is an honor to recognize such a meritorious group.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the students of Williston Northampton School in Easthampton, MA for their excellence in academic competition. Under the tutelage of Mr. Peter Gun, these young people have shown an acute knowledge of the Constitution and its Amendments, in particular the Bill of Rights. On April 21-23, 2001 more than 1200 students from across the country will be in Washington, DC to demonstrate their expertise in American government and represent their home states as part of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program, sponsored in part by the U.S. Department of Education. I am pleased to announce the class from Williston Northampton School will participate on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Gun's students have taken a strong interest in the principles that govern our nation. Through their studies, they have become aware of the founders' efforts to fashion an enduring republic. Through their accomplishments, they have shown a keen understanding of the political process, its participants and the laws that will ensure America's continued vitality. It is an honor to recognize such a meritorious group.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the outstanding community service of the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Many communities in western Massachusetts have faced significant economic and social challenges since the paper industries which once dominated our region's economy moved south and west in the latter half of the twentieth century. Holyoke, Massachusetts is one such city. But, fortunately for its residents, Holyoke has been blessed with superior creative leadership, both in the public and private sector. Economic revitalization, educational advancements and hope for a better tomorrow are all on the rise in Holyoke, and the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside, one of the city's best corporate citizens, is a big part of Holyoke's bright future. Each year for the past nine years, the Holyoke Mall has helped produce ``The Future Begins Here'' coalition event that supports children's programs throughout the Pioneer Valley. Some of Holyoke's neediest children benefit from ``The Future Begins Here,'' and the Holyoke Mall should be commended for its strong commitment to the initiative. May 6, 2001 will mark the tenth year of the event, with the Holyoke Mall still on board as a key partner. I commend the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside's focus on the children of the Pioneer Valley. It will help build a better tomorrow for everyone in western Massachusetts.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) who announced his retirement from the Congress this week. With his departure, we will lose one of our finest, wittiest, and longest serving Members. We in the Massachusetts delegation will lose our dean, our load star, and the patron saint of South Boston. Even before his years as chairman and later ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Joe was a force not to be tangled with. In nearly 3 decades of service in the House, he cites among his most notable accomplishments his fight for peace and justice in El Salvador during the conflict-ridden 1980s. He is known for that and a lot more in Massachusetts. Congressman Moakley has literally lifted the city of Boston up. He has set an example for all of us in his efforts to improve the lives of working families, and his deeply personal style will be remembered. Speaking of lifting the city of Boston up, Joe has spent the last decade securing crucial transportation funding for the Boston Metropolitan area, which faces formidable transportation challenges. Joe recognized that large investments were necessary to keep the great and historic city of Boston in a prominent place in the global economy, and soon Boston will be a shining example of efficient transportation that will be a tribute to Joe's tireless work. Joe has been an important part of my political life, too. When I was elected in 1991, Joe cleared the way for me to join the Committee on Appropriations and so helped me define my role in Congress. And I am grateful to him. Joe's recent diagnosis of incurable leukemia touches all of our lives. It takes a special breed of person to respond with such grace and equanimity. Joe, I wish you the best. We all wish you the best. Our thoughts and prayers will be with you always. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for bringing this bill before us today. It is but a small recognition of Joe Moakley's dedication to public service and of his great accomplishments for the people of Massachusetts. I urge its adoption.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the University of Massachusetts Minuteman Marching Band on its appearance in the 2001 Presidential Inaugural Parade. The Minuteman Marching Band was nominated by the Governor of Massachusetts and was selected by the Inaugural Committee to appear in the parade. The Minuteman Marching Band has long been recognized for its excellence, receiving the prestigious Sudler Trophy in 1998. In addition, the band has a history of participation in Presidential inaugural festivities. The Minutemen marched in the 1981 Presidential Inaugural Parade and performed at the Inaugural Ceremonies in 1985. The band, made up of 300 students, represents 16 states and over 90 Massachusetts communities. These talented students provide an invaluable service to the student body of Umass-Amherst, and to the citizens of the state of Massachusetts. They performed admirably in the 2001 Inaugural Parade, and everyone from the UMass community is proud of their achievement. I am pleased to recognize the band's director, George Parks, and all the students in the band for their outstanding performance.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct conferees to put our children's education first by giving them modern, safe schools, and smaller class sizes. We, as Members of the 106th Congress from both parties, could not find a more legitimate, nor a more timely, use of a proportion of our surplus than to help our communities build new schools and equip those schools with up-to-date technology. All of our public school kids deserve an equal opportunity for a good education, including those who come from communities with the highest property tax burdens who therefore cannot afford to build and repair their schools. Mr. Speaker, the average age of our public schools is now 42 years, a third of them are in bad need of repair or complete replacement. As only one example, in my district in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a town of 20,000 people, the middle school was closed because the walls were literally crumbling, threatening the safety of the students. Now the middle school students are crammed into the town's overcrowded high school which has a leaking roof. Mr. Speaker, last week, the majority passed the flawed $2\1/2\ billion school construction bond program in their tax bill. In that same bill, they gave $18 billion, seven times as much in a variety of business tax breaks, including, of all things, additional tax deduction for business meals and the repeal of taxes for producers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. Remember the three martini lunches? Those are simply wrong priorities. We should not put tax breaks for business ahead of our schools and our children's education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to accept this motion and thereby improve the Labor-HHS bill. Mr. Speaker, if, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Goodling) has said, this issue is all agreed, then bring the negotiated Labor, Health and Education agreement to the floor, and we will take a long step toward completing our work.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it is a hard act to follow from my colleague from Connecticut, but I rise in support of the motion to instruct. Rural areas like mine in western Massachusetts, and not so rural areas like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) like Long Island, have been left high and dry by Medicare HMOs. They have largely abandoned rural markets to providing a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, and those plans that do remain have raised premiums by as much as 300 percent in some cases. Now, I support giving better reimbursements to health care providers that were harmed by the Balanced Budget Act. Hospitals, nursing homes, home health providers, and even HMOs need our help. But it makes no sense to me to give billions of dollars to HMOs, while allowing them to abandon senior citizens in rural America without coverage for prescription drugs. Such a handout to HMOs without holding them accountable is a reckless use of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, if we are to give money back to the HMOs, we should have some guarantee that they will not take the money and run. We must add, we must require HMOs to offer a fair plan to all seniors for drug coverage that they desperately need.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. My predecessor, as a member from the First District of Massachusetts, Silvio Conte, a member of the other party, was one of the great figures of the 20th century in this House of Representatives and one of the great champions on behalf of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I am very glad, on his behalf, to hear that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has agreed with the idea of $1.6 million; maybe whatever else the gentlewoman from Connecticut might be asking for on this program. I urge the majority to get the Labor, Health and Education bill, which we passed originally in this House back in July, back to the floor so that we can finish our work. It is 4 weeks into the new fiscal year. This is the longest session in the history of the country in an election year, and the work is not done. We have not finished the appropriation bills for the year. I would like to speak to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on his comments about energy policy and remind him that on energy policy the majority in this Congress has obstructed both the short-term and the long-term effort to lower our dependence on foreign oil. In the short term, they thwarted every effort to require additional efficiency in the use of vehicles when half of all our oil is used for transportation and for vehicles in transportation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in Greenfield, Massachusetts, a town of 20,000 people, the middle school was closed because walls were literally crumbling, threatening the safety of students. Now the middle school students are crammed into the town's overcrowded high school which has leaking roofs. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago, the majority passed a bill that assigned $2.5 billion over 5 years for school construction bonds to build and repair schools. In the very same bill they assigned $18 billion, seven times as much, in business tax cuts over the same 5 years. Those business tax cuts included increasing the business tax deduction for meals from 50 to 70 percent and repealing several taxes on producers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. Remember, the three-martini lunches? That is a very clear picture of wrong priorities. This is October 28. We are 4 weeks into the fiscal year, CR number eight, and our work is not done. This is the longest session in the history of the Nation.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the authorizing committee.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to vote for this legislation. I want, first, to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our ranking member, and the majority and minority staff, John Blazey for the majority and Cheryl Smith for the minority staff, for the work that they have done; and it is a very fine piece of work on what is a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I want particularly to thank the chair and the ranking member and the majority and minority staff for working with me and the other Members of the Massachusetts delegation to repair the necessary working relationship between the Federal Highway Administration and the Massachusetts Highway Administration, making certain that my State would continue to have or could depend upon a balanced construction program during the final years of the construction of what is the largest and most complex construction project in the history of this country. Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman, who will move on to some other subcommittee or some other ranking chairmanship position in the next Congress. I want to commend him for what has been the hallmarks of his tenure as chairman which, in my mind, clearly has been both fairness and safety. Throughout his years he has focused on the safety of the traveling public, whether it was rail, whether it was air travel, whether it was highway travel. In that, I want to commend him for his persistence in his advocacy of what I believe is a carefully and judiciously crafted phase-in of the .08 blood alcohol content requirement. Remember, here, no one loses any dollars for at least 6 years. I do not in any way doubt that the blood alcohol content provision can be viewed as only one part of a comprehensive program in dealing with driving under the influence. But if adopted, if adhered to, if enforced, this provision can save 500 lives every year, and in so doing, save hundreds and probably thousands of families from the grief of loss that occurs when there is a senseless DUI accident. I commend the chairman for his persistence in his work on that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend the Boys and Girls Club of Pittsfield on its 100th Anniversary. It is one of only 13 Boys and Girls clubs in the country to reach its 100th Anniversary, and over the years it has provided an invaluable service to thousands of boys and girls throughout the region. The national Boys and Girls Club movement was born in 1860, when a group of women in Hartford decided to provide local boys with an alternative to roaming the streets. In 1906, several Boys Clubs decided to affiliate. The Federated Boys Clubs in Boston was formed with 53 member organizations. In 1956, Boys Clubs of America received a Congressional Charter. In 1990, the name was changed to the Boys and Girls Club of America. The Boys' and Girls' Club of Pittsfield was formed in the early days of the organization and remains special and unique in our community. The Pittsfield facility was established on June 28, 1900 as a club for boys in Pittsfield with an $800 donation by local philanthropist Zenas Crane. It soon embarked upon a tradition of service and community involvement catering to several generations of Pittsfield youth. With an initial membership of 320, the club held its first meetings on the second floor of the Renne Block on Renne Avenue with the intent of preventing idleness and instilling healthy work and home values in its membership. Providing an array of recreational and educational opportunities for countless youth under the auspices of its first superintendent, Prentice Jordan, the club soon expanded beyond its original quarters. In 1906, when its membership grew to over 800, Crane funded a move to a more specious residence on Melville Street. Currently, the membership of the club exceeds 5000, making it the largest single-unit organization affiliated with the Boys and Girls Club of America. The Boys and Girls Club of Pittsfield continues to inspire and enable thousands of young people to realize their full potential as productive, responsible and caring citizens. I am proud to stand and honor them today and appreciate the opportunity to recognize them before the United States Congress.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would just say there are no white hats in this operation, and there are neither on the Albanian side nor on the Serb side when one considers what happens in Kosovska Mitrovica. It is not easy to turn organizations which have grown up in war into democratic organization in the pursuit of multiethnic community. But if Kosovo is ever to be a multiethnic and a multireligious community, then we are going to have to work with these organizations. I very much oppose that we adopt the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I request that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) ask unanimous consent so that I could have a whole minute, which would be 45 seconds on each side.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify for the record that the bill language on Kyoto, in Section 577 of this bill, which was crafted in a bipartisan manner by my colleagues, myself, and Mr. Knollenberg, is in fact identical to the provision adopted on appropriations bills for Energy and Water and Agriculture, and essentially the same as the provision on the VA/HUD and CJS bills. However, I would like to clarify for the record that some additional characterizations of the provision, both in remarks made on the floor during deliberation of the Agriculture appropriations bill, and as submitted to the record on that bill, are not correct. They are in direct conflict with the bipartisan agreement that was crafted, and more importantly, with the statutory language which is now in the Agricultural Appropriations bill and the other bills I have listed, including the bill, Foreign Operations. The assertion that activities allowed under the language must be specifically authorized in incorrect. In fact, that is not what the language says. The language says that activities otherwise authorized by law are not subjected to any of the restrictions that may be imposed by the Kyoto proviso. There are many activities that the Administration engages in that fall within generally authorized activities--activities that are supported and funded by Congress in a bipartisan fashion. These types of activities include negotiations, both formal and informal, for instance--and many energy-saving programs that benefit consumers and the economy. Some Members on the other side of the aisle stated they have no intention of disrupting these programs, or the ability of the Administration to negotiate the climate change treaty or to engage developing countries in a manner consistent with Senate Resolution 98, for instance. And yet, characterizations in the record that activities must be specifically authorized in NOT reflected in the statutory provision that was agreed upon and adopted. It is simply not correct. There are many programs and activities that are funded by the Congress, and carried out by the Administration, that are not ``specifically authorized'' by Congress, but are authorized under general provisions. Moreover, the U.S. continues to implement its obligations under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the U.S. with the consent of the Senate. That is why the language that is included in the bills that I have listed--in Agricultural Appropriations, in CJS, VA- HUD, Energy and Water, and now, Foreign Operations--does not say that only activities specifically authorized by law are allowed. If such language were included, it would bring a halt too many bipartisan supported programs and initiatives that this Congress, and many others before it, have supported and funded. I want to make clear, the language does not preclude the regulatory and non-regulatory programs that have bipartisan support and that save money for businesses and consumers, help the environment, and improve public health. It does not prohibit the many voluntary, non-regulatory programs and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases--programs that also reduce energy bills, improve the nation's energy security, and reduce local air pollutants.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this has been, at times, an ugly debate; but then we should not expect anything else. This is an ugly bill. There are multiple reasons to oppose this legislation, and I do oppose it. But the utter callousness of the cuts in what is really a very modest debt relief funding that has been asked by the administration, by the President of the United States, is reason enough to oppose the legislation. The President asked for $472 million for debt relief program for this year, and that was cut by 82 percent to a total of $82 million. That is even more than a one-third cut from what was made available last year in the area of debt relief. Now, Mr. Chairman, it may be folly to try to find what is common ground in a situation like this, but I do think that we can probably all agree that there are some, maybe many developing nations that have experienced declining economic conditions while accumulating higher levels of debt which are largely owed to the international lending institutions, the multilateral public lending agencies, the IMF, the World Bank, also to foreign governments, and the U.S. Government. I think we all would agree that that has happened. Since 1989, the G-7 countries, at that time Canada, Japan, the U.S., Italy, Britain, Germany, and France, that seven, in recognizing that this mounting debt burden for some borrowers had undermined economic growth and even their capacity to finance absolutely basic social and even health programs started setting policies and extending a series of debt relief arrangements. The most recent of those arrangements is the HPIC arrangement this last year. Now, the 41 nations in the HPIC arrangement, which are the nations of the heavily indebted poor countries, those 41 nations include four from Latin America, four from Asia, and 33 from Africa. Ninety percent of American debt among those 41 nations is in that group of 33 from Africa. It is interesting that, of all that debt, which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the previous speakers, had pointed out, that the total debt in those nations had increased to $169 billion. Only $6 billion of that is debt to the United States, debt to this government. We are a Nation which has 25 percent of the wealth of this world, of this whole planet, and 25 percent of the whole economic base of this whole planet; and something like under 4 percent of the debt to these poorest of the poor nations is owed to the United States. These nations in Africa are the nations in sub-Saharan Africa who are suffering the worst of the AIDS epidemic, the worst of HIV/AIDS. There are nations there where one-third of all the adults are suffering from HIV/AIDS. There are nations there where as many as half of all the 15- year-old kids can expect to die of AIDS. There are nations where, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) earlier pointed out, more money is expended on the debt relief, their payment of debt in some of those nations than they pay for all of health and all of education, all of their social programs. I have heard, though I cannot confirm this by any particular report, that in cases, it is as much as four times as much as going to attempt to pay for that debt that has been built up. Yet, in this instance, the 82 percent cut in the program that the President asked for, cuts from the President's request, the reduction in the President's request from $472 million to $82 million, deliberately attacks the very program, the HPIC program which had been worked out by the G-8 nations as a way of dealing with the debts in these very poorest of countries. Now, I just want to remind my colleagues that, and this has been alluded to by others as well, in the calendar years 1990 through 1992, there were a series of initiatives of debt reduction totalling more than $10 billion; actually it is slightly more than $12 billion. They included a debt forgiveness for Poland of $2.5 billion. They included a debt forgiveness for military aid loans to Egypt of $7 billion, a debt forgiveness of some $700 million that went to African and Latin American nations, and debt forgiveness that went to a series of African and Latin American nations and Bangladesh and Asia totalling more than $2 billion, all of them authorized and approved by this Congress under President George Bush, the former President George Bush; all of them approved at that time totalling $12 billion. Here we are, we are now taking the callous position that we should cut the effort by the G-8 nations in the HPIC countries, the poorest of the poor, cut the President's proposal from $472 million to $82 million. It is virtually unconscionable, and it is for that reason that I support the gentlewoman's amendment that is before us today.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that we in the United States have nearly a million people suffering with HIV/AIDS at the moment. We spend something over $10 billion every single year on this issue, and that averages out to well over $10,000 per person in what we do here in this country in relation to AIDS. In Africa, the amendment that is being offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the amendment by itself would involve $2 per person of the roughly 25 million people now suffering from HIV/AIDS, 20 percent in a country like South Africa, as high as 35 percent of the population in Botswana. It is a very small, a very small pittance for us to contribute to dealing with the AIDS pandemic around this world. We should adopt the amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, my comments will refer to the military construction part of this legislation, and I want to start by saying that it is a great pleasure to work with the chairman of this Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). It is also a pleasure to work with the staff, both the majority and minority staff, the majority clerk, Liz Dawson, and our minority staff, Tom Forhan. Mr. Speaker, this agreement, negotiated in a fair and bipartisan spirit under the leadership of subcommittee chairman deserves our support. It was not an easy negotiation. The bills produced by the two parties were miles apart. Therefore, to reach agreement, there were worthy construction projects that had to be reduced or dropped. So not everyone is happy with the result in either branch or from either side of the aisle. I am not pleased with giving up the $20 million deferral of construction funding for national missile defense that the House-passed bill included. It is very clear to me that the appropriations in this bill for national missile defense represents a head-long rush toward a goal that exceeds our grasp. Supporting material for the budget request was thin and vague. Cost estimates were based on the most expensive options in every case. The prevalent presumption is that the site of the facility will be Alaska, which would break the ABM Treaty. With the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the House tried to apply reality to this program; but the Senate was obdurate. However, looking at the good in the rest of this bill, I support its passage. The agreement provides for better workplaces and housing for the men and women that serve our Nation in the military, along with their families and, as such, will help us to retain our well-trained people. The appropriation for military construction is 5 percent higher than last year, so we are not losing ground in dealing with our facilities and housing backlog. At least half of the dollars of the appropriated dollars go to family and bachelor housing, both new and for improvements to existing housing. And several hundred million additional dollars are for child development centers, hospitals and health clinics, and schools. So I think we are on the road to improving the quality of life for our military families. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman particularly for the bipartisan spirit behind this bill. And again I want to recognize both the minority and majority staff on this bill. They are dedicated professionals who put the time and effort into making this agreement real. I urge my colleagues to support the military construction conference report.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because this bill is a sham. It covers only the poorest senior citizens whose incomes place them near or below the poverty standard. It deliberately creates another division in America: us who are wealthy enough to take care of ourselves and them who are given a taxpayer handout because they are poor. In fact, the Republican plan is carefully designed to fail, not immediately, of course, certainly not before the November election. It is being polished to look like gold until after the election. But next year when everyone realizes this plan was virtually useless and worthless, fool's gold, that failure will be used as a spear to attack Medicare, the hammer the Republicans hope to use to privatize Medicare. That is the bottom line, privatization. Eliminate the Medicare program that provides universal, dependable, quality, guaranteed health insurance for every senior citizen by right of American citizenship. This bill is political chicanery at its very worst.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan is designed to fail because it is a little more than a request for insurance companies and HMOs to provide insurance for prescription drugs for senior citizens. But, in fact, those HMOs and insurance companies that would provide their plan have already made market decisions to abandon their Medicare HMO program and pull out of virtually every rural and semi-rural area all over America. Why would they provide this plan? They have said that they will not. Republicans claim that their drug plan will provide choices for senior citizens, but their plan guarantees nothing. What would provide choice for seniors is a simple, straight forward, universal, guaranteed prescription medicine benefit that every American eligible for Medicare can choose. That would provide at least one more choice for every single American than they have today. Vote no on this sham plan.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted an additional 1 minute.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for each side.