John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised by the argument that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is making here. The proviso is precisely the same proviso that was in the VA-HUD bill, and the amendment, as I have offered it, is precisely equivalent to the amendment that was offered and voted 314 to 108 last week. The only difference is that the proviso as it was on the VA-HUD bill applied to only one title of the bill, whereas this proviso now applies as a general provision to every title of this bill. And, therefore, the only thing that has been removed from this amendment is the particular application to the EPA title of the bill which, of course, would not make any sense in a piece of legislation that deals with Commerce and with the State Department and with the Judiciary and with the Justice Department. So, I really do not understand where there is any difference in the import here. The only thing that is being done by this amendment is to make certain that those things otherwise authorized by law are, in fact, not subject to the limitation, which is precisely what was happening last week when we were saying that those things otherwise authorized by law, those activities that are part of the proviso which are otherwise authorized by law, were not subject to the limitation provision. So I think that the gentleman voted for the amendment last week in exactly that form, as did the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, last week Members will remember that as we were debating the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies legislation, that the exact proviso that exists in section 107 was in that legislation, but attached only to the EPA title of the legislation. It serves to limit the use of funds that are provided by the Act within the EPA's title II in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the proviso on page 107 is, as I say, exactly the same proviso that existed in the VA-HUD Act, but in this instance it is a general provision and so it affects every one of the titles of the bill. I am offering an amendment which is the precisely parallel amendment to the amendment offered adopted by this House by a vote of 314 to 108 last week that simply makes clear that any of the activities that are part of that proviso, that any of those activities which are otherwise authorized in legislation, are not subject to the limitation that is proposed within the proviso. That I think is precisely equivalent language that we adopted by a vote of 314 to 108 last week. I would hope that the amendment would be agreed to, as it was last week, and voted last week. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support for the Jackson amendment. I only wish we had more opportunities to discuss America's constructive involvement in global affairs. Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is not intervention; peacekeeping is the promotion of peace and security. It is the international cooperation required for a war-torn region to transition from militarization to democracy. In many areas of the globe, international peacekeeping missions are the only lines of defense against ethnic cleansing. We need look no further than Kosovo or East Timor to know that our participation saves lives. The amendment before us would add $241 million to our peacekeeping contributions. This modest increase should not be controversial, given the state of the conflict in this world. Frankly, the $498 million line item for peacekeeping in this bill falls well short of our international commitments. I think we are ignoring fundamental needs globally, but particularly in Africa. The language of the report is particularly insensitive to African needs. I want to just quote several pieces here over a page, the first line of each of several paragraphs. The committee recommendation does not include amounts requested for certain peacekeeping missions, including MINURSO in Western Sahara, UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, MONUC in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And then the committee is particularly concerned about the future of the UNAMSIL mission in Sierra Leone. The recommendation does not include requested funding for the MONUC mission. And then, the recommendation again does not include funding for the MINURSO mission. Then, the recommendation does not include requested funding for the Angola Monitoring mission. Again, the committee recommendation does not include funding requested for a new mission for Ethiopia and Eritrea. Of all of our peacekeeping efforts around the globe, all in Africa are underfunded; and virtually nowhere else is that measure being used. The multinational war in Congo and several recent severe outbreaks of ethnic cleansing and ethnic violence have created enormous humanitarian needs throughout Africa, but especially in Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Eritrea. America's peacekeeping program is a work in progress. We should not halt that progress; we should keep the U.S. a responsible and engaged actor in the international community by supporting the Jackson-Dixon amendment.

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

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment. Once again we are debating a Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, and once again we are debating whether or not to adequately fund legal representation for poor and disenfranchised citizens. Think about it: we are debating about whether or not low-income people deserve the basic kind of legal representation that we Members of Congress all take for granted. In my opinion, there is no argument here. This should not be controversial. This is common sense; this is simple equity. The Legal Services Corporation offers legal protection to those who need it the most, victims of spousal abuse, child abuse and consumer fraud. During the past year, Legal Services grantees completed almost 1 million civil legal cases, helping everyone from veterans, family farmers, to people with disabilities and victims of floods and hurricanes. These cases involve domestic violence, child custody, access to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims. Legal Services gives these people help to maintain their incomes, their homes, their health care coverage, and their dignity. I could understand the opposition to Legal Services if the organization had somehow been irresponsible or reckless in how it distributes its funds to grantees. Yet Legal Services has been proven highly effective in serving people, while adhering to congressional guidelines. The corporation requires competitive bidding for all grants and has established strict reporting guidelines for its grantees. In response to this Congress' mandate, Legal Services prohibits its grantees from engaging in certain activities, including welfare reform advocacy, lobbying, illegal alien representation, class action suits and abortion litigation. Some of those prohibitions I do not agree with and did not vote for. Legal Services has also been savvy enough to partner with private organizations to raise additional funds, as well as to promote pro bono services from private attorneys. So as much as the opposition would like to portray the Legal Services Corporation as an irresponsible, liberal activist group wasting taxpayer dollars, this is simply not the case. This is a responsible organization that is dedicated to representing the least represented in our society. To underfund Legal Services by nearly $200 million is a clear abandonment of our commitment to provide equal access to our judicial system, and a vote against this amendment says loud and clear that this Congress is content to let our justice system splinter into two categories, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. Vote for the Serrano amendment and send a signal that we should have one justice system that is open and accessible to all of our citizens, regardless of their income.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we were apprised last night that the language as the gentleman has read it, in fact, left a question of interpretation as to what the words ``activities related to the Kyoto Protocol'' would mean. And the Clerks advised me and others who were interested in this that there would be no ambiguity if the word related was tied to the very provisions that are in the previous proviso, which is, of course, the provided further proviso that gives the bill language as it has stood, and that, therefore, it would be limited very carefully to those items.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the amendment be read?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from the State of West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is short and clear. It simply affirms the agreement which has been in effect the last 2 years after painstaking negotiations by the House, the Senate, and the executive branch in passing the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD bill. Mr. Chairman, the final fiscal VA-HUD conference committee bill contained limitation language which is used again in this year's bill. The accompanying conference report language was only approved after extensive negotiation. But the conferees specifically agreed, and I quote in part: ``The conferees recognize that there are longstanding energy research programs which could have positive effects on energy use and the environment. The conferees do not intend to preclude these programs from proceeding, provided that they have been funded and approved by Congress.'' For fiscal 2001 again we have the same bill language as fiscal 1999 and fiscal 2000, but the report language this year has been greatly changed and goes far beyond the carefully negotiated fiscal 1999 conference agreement. Without my amendment, this report language can be construed to limit even longstanding authorized and funded programs, our renewable energy research and development programs to promote clean power, our program to develop new homes that are 50 percent more energy efficient and save families dollars, our program to reduce methane emissions because methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, and even the Clean Air Act which became law with the initiative and strong support of President Nixon a generation ago. All are geared towards reducing greenhouse gases and have been approved and funded by this Congress, but could be jeopardized. Mr. Chairman, the language of my amendment allows the EPA to operate as it has over the last 2 years under the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD conference agreement and the accompanying negotiated report language. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt amendment. Work funded by the NSF touches our lives every day in a multitude of ways, from the meteorological technology like Doppler radar, which more accurately predicts storm paths, to advances in fiber optics used by the cable TV, the long distance telephone, and computer industries that benefits every American, to research to develop edible vaccines which would make vaccinating large groups of people easier. Mr. Chairman, these scientific advances are the result of decades of sustained research. We must invest in NSF research today to maximize the benefits of science and technology for tomorrow and the future. Our world and our economy are changing rapidly. We should not shortchange basic science research because that would shortchange our very futures. I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the clerks were concerned it was ambiguous, the language with the word ``related,'' and there would be some question to determine what was related to the proviso. In this instance, it is clearly tied to those items which are listed in the previous proviso, but are also authorized and funded by previous law.

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to rise in strong support of these amendment which are offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who just finished speaking very eloquently, along with the gentleman from California. These amendment provide $15 million in addition for the NEA, $5 million for the NEH, and $2 million for the museum and library services. They are very modest amendments, and they have an excellent value for the dollars that are proposed. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities play an important role in our society that we should not allow to be trashed in the halls of this Congress. Since 1995, the majority party has moved every year to either eliminate or cut funding levels for the NEA and for NEH. At the $98 million proposed appropriation for fiscal year 2001, the funding level for the NEA is 40 percent what it was only in 1995. The NEH has not fared much better. The 2001 level proposed is 33 percent below what have provided in 1995. Both are at less than half the appropriation reached during the 1980s administrations of Presidents Reagan and Bush, both Republicans. By the proposed underfunding of the NEA, this Congress would once again shift funding away from people whose opportunities in the arts are the most limited among all Americans, and that at a time when the NEA has redesigned the program to broaden its reach to all Americans. The Challenge America initiative that has already been described so well by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is aimed at making grants available to our Nation's small-and medium-sized communities. For such communities, often NEH and the NEA are the opportunity of last resort for exposure to arts and humanities in their common form. The smaller communities in western and central Massachusetts use these funds to provide residents with theater productions, museums, local arts centers, and such. If Congress refuses to increase funding for NEA above fiscal year 2000 levels, this Challenge America initiative will not grow and thrive and thousands of underserved communities will continue to be denied access to the arts. Funding for the NEA and NEH represents a minuscule percentage of the overall Federal budget and contributes enormously to the cultural life of cities and towns throughout the Nation. Surely, these programs are as deserving of a $22 million increase in funding in the combination of these amendments as the few thousand wealthiest families in America are deserving of billions of dollars of tax give-away that the majority party pushed through this House only last week. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendments before us.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of what the gentleman from Vermont and the other Members of the body from the northeastern States are doing here today with this amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Vermont for his very strong leadership in dealing with this and making certain that we do not let it pass by. The amendment is simple. Without busting the caps, without taking money from other programs, the amendment provides $10 million for a Northeast home heating oil reserve. In the event of a sustained price hike, a healthy reserve can be open then to the market to drive prices back down to affordable and reasonable levels. It is something that we all should support. In fact, this body already has voted to support it and has voted for it overwhelmingly. When the reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve legislation passed the House earlier this year, it called for the establishment of a Northeast home heating oil reserve, and that legislation passed by a vote of 416-8. This amendment deserves the same measure of support. Mr. Chairman, the residual effects of the crisis that we in the Northeast endured last winter are being felt in ripples across the country. The cold weather and the astronomical heating bills, of course, are gone, for the moment but the ongoing shortage of crude oil in this country has rippled into high gasoline prices, and those prices are getting higher. I am hearing this week that in Chicago and other places in the Midwest, we are running into gasoline prices at the tank that are running somewhere in the $2.50 plus range and are expected to go even higher. There are many steps that we can take to comprehensively address this problem as a whole. Among other things, we should accelerate the development of alternative energy sources and demand greater fuel efficiency from every category and class of vehicles that is used in transportation. Those kinds of long-term measures take a period of time. Right now, we need a better emergency plan. Winter will be back, and we will have done absolutely nothing, because if we do not do at least this as a starter today, we will have done absolutely nothing, because those long-term measures, which are so obvious and obviously needed for, indeed, our long term and will take a good deal of lead time to implement. So I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. If they do not want it, they do not have to take it.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Obey amendment. The Republican leadership wants America to believe that adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is one of their top priorities. That simply is untrue. They have done nothing to seriously address prescription drug prices for citizens. Many of the 13 million senior citizens who have no insurance coverage for prescription drugs are forced to choose between food and medicine, yet the Republican leadership has just pushed a $200 billion tax giveaway for the super rich through the House. More than half of their reckless tax giveaway is available to only a few thousand of the wealthiest families out of more than 60 million families in America. We should put an end to these giveaways until Congress enacts a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all Americans who are eligible for Medicare. Senior citizens' lives are at risk when they cannot afford prescription drugs that they need, yet pharmaceutical companies and their lobbying machine have kept this Congress from enacting a prescription drug benefit. But, Mr. Chairman, this debate does tell America what Republican priorities really are: Tax cuts for the super-rich, a few, before prescription drugs for the 13 million American senior citizens who cannot afford either the out-of-pocket costs or the insurance for drug coverage. It is the Republican majority who have created the so-called class warfare that the gentleman from Illinois speaks about. They have put the comfort of the very wealthy over the needs of ordinary citizens. We must begin responding to the needs of all Americans, not just the super-rich. Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for this amendment and against this totally inadequate bill.