John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment. Slowly, but surely, we are shifting the higher educational financial aid system away from low-income working families who need it the most. We all know that college costs are skyrocketing and that these costs are particularly burdensome for working class and minority families trying to send their first child to college. Pell Grants are the one program specifically designed to help these low-income students get their foot in the door of a college or university. Since 1980, adjusted for inflation, tuition has more than doubled, while the value of the maximum Pell award has dropped by 25 percent. So I do not buy the Republican argument that we have done enough financial aid for needy kids. None of us should buy the argument put forth by some, including Governor Bush, that says, well, if they cannot afford school, let them just take out loans. For a low-income family, particularly one that has never sent a child to college, the prospect of taking out $15,000, $30,000, or $50,000 of loans is often unthinkable. That option is simply not in the cards. In many cases, if the family cannot afford the tuition bill, these kids simply do not enroll at all. So I support the modest Lowey amendment to raise the Pell Grant by $300 to $3,800 a year. A yes vote on this amendment sends a message that Congress is willing to give the neediest, hard working kids an extra boost into college. It is not a handout, but a helping hand, to those students who need it the most.

Mr. OLVER. It is voluntary, and it is one that anybody who has a better plan should keep their better plan.

Mr. OLVER. If they have a better plan, surely they will keep the plan they have, rather than take a plan which is inferior, if they have a better plan.

Mr. OLVER. Voluntary.

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

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion. It should not be controversial. These United States are on the verge of embarking on what could be a $60 billion National Missile Defense program. This House included more than adequate funding to start the early lead construction items of the National Missile Defense as it is now conceived. The other Chamber has funded this item at a substantially and unnecessarily higher level. This motion instructs the conferees to insist on the more prudent level of spending in the House bill; 367 Members of the House supported this level of spending when we passed the bill several weeks ago, and it is important that we maintain our position. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Death Tax Elimination Act should be called the Multi-millionaire Protection Act. It does tell America what Republican priorities really are. Before anything else, the Republican leadership would give a huge, reckless and dangerous backloaded tax cut to only 2 percent of Americans, and more than half of the tax cut goes to the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent. That is right, more than half of it would be available to fewer than 60,000 families out of more than 60 million families. Do the Republicans really believe that the Bill Gates and Steve Forbes and John Corzines need $25 billion of tax cuts every year? Does anyone listening or watching today believe they need $25 billion of tax cuts? But the Republican leadership would give that multi-billion dollar tax cut before limiting class sizes to 18 for 3 million children, before establishing a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare for 13 million American senior citizens who cannot afford the expense of insurance coverage. It is a stunning revelation to know that the Republicans' highest priority is a huge tax cut that only benefits the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Vote for the substitute and against this giveaway.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, small family farmers and business owners in my district deserve tax relief. I support the Democratic substitute legislation that excludes up to $4 million for couples owning farms or small businesses. But this estate tax bill really should be titled ``the Billionaire Protection Bill.'' This Billionaires Protection Act is a terrible solution to an easily remedied problem, but it does tell America exactly what Republican priorities really are. Before anything else, the Republican leadership would give a huge, reckless, and dangerous backloaded tax cut, more than half of which goes to the 60,000 wealthiest families among our 60 million families. Do Republicans really believe that the Bill Gates, the Steve Forbes, the John Corzines, need $25 billion of tax cuts every year? Does anyone listening and watching today believe they need $25 billion of tax cuts? The Republican leadership would give this multi-billion dollar tax cut before limiting class size to 18 for more than 3 million children; before establishing a prescription drug benefit in Medicare for 13 million American senior citizens who cannot afford the expense of drug coverage; before raising the minimum wage for millions of Americans working full-time for less than $11,000 per year; before paying down the national debt, so interest rates will go down for all American homeowners; before extending social security so that our generation and our children's generation will have a secure base for retirement. It is a stunning revelation to know that the Republicans' last priority is a huge tax cut for the super rich. Vote for the substitute and against this give-away. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Secretary Madeleine K. Albright for articulating the United States' willingness to engage Iran after Majlis (parliamentary) victories for Iranian reformers. Her effort to expand cultural and economic ties with Iran is wise and appropriate. While I do not condone the egregious violations of human rights and international law that routinely take place in Iran, we must make it clear to reformers there that the U.S. is eager to reciprocate moves toward a friendlier relationship. Through the election of Mohammad Khatemi and his pro-reform allies in the Iranian parliament, the Iranian people have expressed a desire to moderate their nation's conservative Islamic government. Ali Khamene'i and Iran's other religious leaders, who hold ultimate control over virtually all Iranian policy, have, for the most part, allowed Iran's new elected leadership to take their places in the Majlis. However, the Washington Post recently reported that the Council of Guardians has overturned several electoral victories for reformers at the provincial level, in addition to manipulating Iran's electoral institutions to favor conservatives in parliamentary runoffs. I believe that while the electoral victories represent an important victory for democracy in Iran, the tenuousness of those victories highlights the degree to which Iran's major institutions are still controlled by a handful of oligarchs. There is much work to be done on these issues. I would also like to recognize the work of Iranian-American citizens who have worked hard to open up economic ties between the U.S. and Iran. I hope that the lifting of luxury imports and increase in travel visas that Secretary Albright announced in her speech will create some improvement in the quality of life for ordinary Iranians. Further, I hope that improvements in Iran's economy will amplify the cries for democracy. Once again, I want to reiterate my support for Secretary Albright's attempt to engage and bolster Iranian reformers.

Mr. OLVER

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

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for the purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the major function of this military construction bill deals with the training and housing facilities for the men and women who serve us in our military forces, but also with the education, the health clinics and hospitals and the daycare centers that serve their families while they serve us. At the very outset of this discussion I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) particularly for the bipartisan spirit in which this bill has been prepared, and I wanted to recognize the close and cooperative relationship that has existed between the majority and minority staffs as the legislation has been prepared. The bill before us, I believe, deserves our support. It is a good bill, prepared in that bipartisan spirit that I have mentioned. It provides for better workplaces and housing for the men and women that serve our Nation, but also for better housing for their families. The funds that are appropriated in this legislation are between 3 and 4 percent more than last year, so we are not losing ground in dealing with the facilities and housing backlog, which is a severe backlog in trying to keep up the quality of life for our personnel. One of the biggest problems that has faced this committee over the past several years is the huge need for quality family housing for the military, and one of the major efforts to address this has been housing privatization in an effort to leverage Federal assets and allow the private sector to come to the table with expertise in housing construction and management. Implementing that program, however, has not been easy. There have been some false starts. It has been slow, but with the chairman's very strong leadership we are starting to make some real progress. As part of his efforts, the committee is asking for the development of family housing master plans for each of the military services, and I particularly appreciate that these reports will review the economics behind the privatization programs and consider the market impact of the Defense Department's increase in the basic allowance for housing, which is to be fully phased in and implemented over the next several years. All in all, I think that we are on the road to improving the quality of life for our military families, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, everyone here recognizes that sustained economic development in sub-Saharan Africa depends upon successful trade with and foreign assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, but there is a crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa now has close to 30 million men, women and children testing positive with HIV/AIDS. Mr. Speaker, the HIV/AIDS crisis threatens the whole workforce in sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Speaker, to have a successful trading relationship with sub-Saharan Africa, it requires urgent and expedited action to meet the HIV/AIDS crisis. Less than 10 months ago when we debated this bill, the House added language, which I am very pleased that was added, to place emphasis on that, that addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis must be a major component of our foreign policy in all of Africa; that significant progress in preventing and treating HIV/AIDS is necessary to sustain a mutually- beneficial trade arrangement there; and that that HIV/AIDS crisis is a global threat that merits further attention through expanded public, private, and joint efforts and through appropriate American legislation. And, as I say, I am very pleased that that language was retained. When the bill went to the other side of the Capitol, language that strengthened the capacity for individual countries to have the ability to negotiate and determine the availability of pharmaceuticals and health care for their citizens and, particularly, with respect to the HIV/AIDS epidemic was added, and that language unfortunately has been lost from the legislation. Mr. Speaker, some 50 Members of the House supported that language and asked that it be retained. I am very disappointed that the language is not there, because it would have greatly expanded our capacity to deal with AIDS in Africa, which dealing with that is critical if there is to be a beneficial trading relationship. Mr. Speaker, I do intend, in spite of the disappointment that we have lost that strengthening language, the weakening of the bill in the conference, to support the bill and the conference report today. I simply want to remind my colleagues that as a sense of Congress we did recognize a year ago that the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Sahara Africa is a global threat and that we must greatly expand public, private, and joint public-private efforts through and beyond legislation passed by this House.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong opposition to the Kasich/ Shays/Condit amendment, which threatens unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosova. One year ago, Kosova was a rump province and ethnic cleansing project of Slobodan Milosevic's Greater Serbia. The world watched the systematic campaign of killing, rape, and forced displacement of ethnic Albanians, whose only crime was their religion. We and NATO were right to intervene, and we still have a job to do. The need in Kosova for peacekeeping, reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all of the promises by NATO and the U.S. together. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally withdraw from our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job, so ably done by our deployed men and women--and the reconstruction job--a great deal harder. And if the threat were acted upon, God forbid, it will only lead to giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Mr. Chairman, Secretary of State Albright has said that our challenge is to ``secure the peace'' in Kosova. This amendment would assure no peace. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which threatens the unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces and resources from Kosovo. The need in Kosovo for peacekeeping reconstruction and development of civil and judicial administration is greater than all the promises put together by the NATO allies and the U.S. The authors of this amendment are right in one respect. Every diplomatic effort to hold NATO allies to their agreement is entirely appropriate. But threatening to unilaterally end our freely given commitment just makes the peacekeeping job so ably done by our deployed men and women and the massive reconstruction that is needed, the job of massive reconstruction, makes those a great deal harder. And, God forbid, if we were to actually act upon this threat, the end result could only be giving the final initiative back to Milosevic. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this has really been quite an interesting discussion we have had, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for being so creative and providing us a way for this discussion to go on. Mr. Chairman, we have been dealing with a war on drugs all the years of this past decade that I have served in the Congress, and quite a few years before that. And I doubt that any single one of us, reading the evidence, could say that we are winning that war on drugs. Generally, I think we do understand that if the war on drugs is to be won, then it is going to have to be a combination of efforts, where demand reduction here at home is going to have to go hand-in-hand with the supply interdiction that occurs at the source. But surely it ought to be a balance that uses most of the most effective effort. In fact, research by the Rand Corporation has shown that in order to get the same benefit that $1 spent on treatment in education-on-demand reduction here at home we would have to spend about $20 in interdiction at the source in order to get the same benefit. Now, Mr. Chairman, because the full amendment that had been offered and debated in the full Committee on Appropriations, the full amendment that was to be proposed and had been proposed before the Committee on Rules by the gentlewoman from California, was not made in order, the gentlewoman had no choice, had no way of entering this debate except to make an amendment that would cut $50 million out of a program that has never been authorized by this Congress. It was her only way to focus on this utter folly of misexpenditure where that $50 million would do 20 times the benefit, at least 20 times the benefit, if that same $50 million that she has proposed to cut were to be used here at home on drug treatment and demand reduction here at home. Mr. Chairman, it is more than an hour ago that the distinguished gentleman, also from California, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, said that he would be happy to join with the gentlewoman from California, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, in doing an effective demand reduction program, expansion of a demand reduction program. Well, he had that opportunity within the full Committee on Appropriations; and if that amendment had been made in order today, he would have had that opportunity again today. It is more than 2 hours ago that the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, had said, in justifying why the amendment that was offered by the gentlewoman from California was not made in order, to be debated in proper order, in general order here, he said that the President had not asked for dollars to fight domestic drugs; and if he had asked for money to fight the domestic drug program, that we would have appropriated it. Well, I have never before noticed any reluctance by the majority to go beyond what this President has requested, if it was appropriate to do so. And I simply do not understand why we would not go after drug demand here at home, drug-demand reduction here at home when that is so clearly known, so clearly shown to be the most effective way to get about winning the war on drugs.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mark and Molly McCulloch of Holyoke as they celebrate the birthday of their daughter Maggie Adele McCulloch who turns 1 year old today, March 16, 2000. Mr. Speaker, I commend the McCulloch family for their commitment to Massachusetts and their community. Over the past decade, my constituent Mr. Mark McCulloch has played a prominent role in the community as Editor of the Holyoke Sun, Westfield Evening News, and now as Editor of the Ware River News. I am grateful for Mr. McCulloch's passion and commitment to politics and journalism. As many of you know, a child's 1st birthday is a joyous occasion. Therefore, it is only appropriate that I ask the House in joining me today in wishing Maggie Adele McCulloch a Happy Birthday.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would say that, as my ranking member the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, that I think that he is right that we would not be here if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) were given some freedom to work out what is going on here. But that is not where we are. It is now five weeks past the beginning of the fiscal year, and the Congress simply has not done its work. One week ago we adopted our third continuing resolution, and here we are with one more continuing resolution being proposed. This one adds only 3 more working days, not even a full week, only 3 more working days to the time to do the work. Well, what has been accomplished in the week under the third continuing resolution? We are still short of completing the budget. As a matter of fact, not one of the five budgets that is still in conference that had not been signed by the end of the first continuing resolution 2 weeks ago, not one of those five budgets has been negotiated, which is, it seems to me, about the only way for differences of opinion and in policy and dollars between the executive branch and the legislative branch under our process to be resolved. Now, if the Republican leadership were tending to other business of the American people that they overwhelmingly want done, that would be one thing. But take campaign finance reform. No, that has been killed for 1999, almost certainly for the year 2000, as well. Take the patients' bill of rights. No, the Speaker of the House just named a conference committee that excludes the major proponents from his own Republican Party, the proponents of the bipartisan bill that passed the House just a couple of weeks ago; and that conference committee is carefully chosen so that it will defy the will of this House. Take a prescription drug benefit program within Medicare to help the hundreds of thousands of senior citizens who cannot afford to pay for prescription drugs on which their very lives depend. No, this Republican leadership has simply refused to bring that bill out for debate because the drug companies that oppose it make a very great deal of money selling drugs to senior citizens whose lives depend upon it. Take providing in the budget for reducing class size so our kindergarten and elementary schoolchildren, which is where all the professional educators of all political ideologies attest that we could make a great positive difference in education, requires both more teachers and more classrooms to accomplish reducing the class size in our schools. No, they refuse to fund that in the budget for education. Take extending Social Security so that Americans over 30 can be sure that Social Security will be there when they need it as it is for those who are over 50. No, they have done absolutely nothing that would extend the lifetime of Social Security by so much as a single day. This is a strange record for a legislative body. Usually legislative bodies at least try to respond to the collective will of their constituents, to the people's collective will. We are going to vote this 3 working days additional continuing resolution, but we are going to be back here next Wednesday voting additional continuing resolutions.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, Americans have enjoyed an unprecedented growth in our economy over 8 years. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, but 12 million workers, 10 percent of all American workers, work at the minimum wage. The majority of them are adults, a majority are women. Most of those women are trying to bring up children at that minimum wage with less than $10,000 a year. They have not seen any benefit from the economic boom. They deserve a wage increase, and they can only get that wage increase by increasing the minimum wage by this Congress. Eighty percent of Americans favor doing that. Even two-thirds of all Republicans favor doing that. We have a bill that would raise the minimum wage by $1 over the next 2 years. It should pass. It could pass in a day, but the Republican leadership is going to hold that bill hostage unless it is possible to give $70 billion per year of tax cuts to the handful of Americans who make more than $300,000 a year. That tax reduction goes to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Why is this? Members guessed it, the handful of Americans who make more than $300,000 a year make the vast majority of contributions to political campaigns. The Republican leadership of this Congress, the House and Senate, have killed campaign finance reform again this year.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it should come home to roost. But the reason they have not touched it is a very deliberate reason. As has already been discussed here this evening, they opposed the creation of Social Security. They opposed virtually to a person the creation of Medicare 30 years ago. Of course, earlier this year, they rammed through the Congress very quickly and then, because it was not very popular out in the general populace, sort of backed away from it, but they ran through a huge, a huge tax reduction using every penny of the projected surpluses while not a penny of those had yet been produced, but only were projections, but used every penny of it that would have been necessary, very deliberately used every penny of it that would have been necessary if there ever was a possibility of extending Social Security and Medicare for the generations to come. It was a very deliberate, a very cynical kind of a move. They have done that, and they will do it again, because they never were in favor of Social Security or Medicare in the first place.