John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler). Barely 11 years ago, Slobodan Milosevic seized power in what was then Yugoslavia, and he remains today the last old line, unrepentant Communist dictator in Europe. Just 10 years ago, in March of 1989, using tactics that would have made Joseph Stalin proud, Milosevic surrounded the elected assembly of Kosovo with Yugoslav Army tanks and secret police and forced that elected body at gunpoint to renounce the autonomy that was guaranteed to Kosovo by the Constitution of Yugoslavia. Milosevic did not even bother to change the Constitution. In rapid succession, all ethnic Albanian public employees were dismissed from their jobs, 100,000 of them. The Albanian language was proscribed for public purposes. The Albanian schools and the university were closed and systematic repression of the ethnic Albanians began. Remember that ethnic Albanians were already a majority of the citizens of Kosovo when Yugoslavia was freed after World War II, and now are more than 90 percent of that population. Then the Milosevic regime was distracted in 1991 and 1992 by its attacks upon two other U.N. members, namely Croatia and Bosnia, that led, as we know, to 200,000 deaths and 2 million refugees that have been spread all over Europe. It is in that context that President George Bush, on December 27, 1992, warned Milosevic that the U.S. would act if he attacked Kosovo in a similar way. I quote from the letter that President Bush delivered to Milosevic, quote, in the event of conflict in Kosovo caused by Serbian action, the United States will be prepared to employ military force against the Serbs in Kosovo and in Serbia proper, and it was that policy that President Clinton has been following and reiterated, reaffirmed in 1993 and has been following. In that context, the then minority leader, later majority leader and Republican candidate for President, Robert Dole, has always supported the strongest possible action, American action, to contain Milosevic's regime. In Kosovo, Milosevic used his army and secret police under a renewed rein of terror to impose thousands of arbitrary arrests, beatings and extrajudicial killings on ethnic Albanians. We should remember that just last October, Milosevic signed agreements in regard to Kosovo and because there were no enforcement provisions there has violated every provision of those agreements signed only four months or so ago. All told, at least 2,000 have been indiscriminately killed, men, women, aged, children, baby in arms and in the womb and at least 400,000 driven from their homes. For all those reasons, the contact powers have agreed to a NATO effort to establish an enforceable peace in Kosovo, and if this NATO effort is subverted, and the amendment by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) clearly subverts the effort to impose a peace in Kosovo, then later this spring this Congress will have contributed to the creation of hundreds of thousands of more refugees and to the deaths of a whole new cadre of victims of the national socialist regime of Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic's right-hand deputy, President Seselj, has already told the Yugoslav parliament that they will drive all of the ethnic Albanians, citizens of Yugoslavia, from Kosovo. I implore this Congress not to make this great United States of America complicit, complicit in these deaths, and creating these refugees and in aiding in Milosevic's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of National TRIO Day-- celebrated each year on the last Saturday in February--to recognize the importance of the Federal TRIO Program. ``What is TRIO?'' To millions of disadvantaged Americans the answer is quite simple: ``TRIO equal opportunity.'' TRIO identifies aspiring students from poor families, prepares them for college-level work, and helps them define and achieve their goals. TRIO plans a critical role in leveling the educational playing field in our country. Since 1965, over 10 million Americans have benefitted from TRIO programs, which include--Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Service, Ronald McNair Post-Baccalaureate Program, and Educational Opportunity Centers. In my Congressional District--in western and central Massachusetts-- TRIO serves 2500 students each year at 8 separate colleges and universities. TRIO has helped many of my constituents lift themselves out of poverty and climb into promising careers as teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, and business owners. TRIO means opportunity to young people across the country who would otherwise not be able to attend college and pursue their dreams. I urge this Congress to recognize the national success of TRIO programs, and to renew our commitment to educational opportunity.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, the United States is right to take forceful leadership to stop the systematic destruction of homes and villages and the slaughter of civilians in Kosova that has been ordered by Slobodan Milosevic, the Communist dictator of rump Yugoslavia. But in that process the United States must not be party to one last sellout of the human rights of the people of Kosova in this 20th century. Milosevic, who supervised the killing of hundreds of thousands of Croats and Bosnians and the creation of at least two million refugees by his attacks on two other United Nations members will now brazenly plead to that very United Nations his right to utterly subjugate or, if not, to kill or drive into exile the two million Kosovars who make up 90 percent of the population of Kosova. Milosevic must not succeed. The time has come for the United States to forcefully and unequivocally promote the ultimate right of self determination of the people of Kosova so they may live in peace and freedom in the 21st Century.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan process that denies the majority of the Members of this House of Representatives and the majority of Americans a vote on a bipartisan compromise, a vote of conscience to censure the President. Mr. Speaker, the American people, in their collective electoral wisdom that we all submit to, have twice elected President Clinton. The American people support the President's performance of his official duties, and they do not want him removed from office. Three months ago when I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for evidence of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors, the only constitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the Starr report. Instead I found evidence, gathered at great public cost, in dollars $50 million, and in destruction of privacy that Americans cherish, evidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature which the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness. Weeks of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary have uncovered nothing more except the partisan close-mindedness of the proceedings. The Republican obsession to impeach President Clinton on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds and against the will of most Americans will cause long lasting divisions in America. The Republicans know that they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President from office so this is a purely partisan exercise in this House designed to humiliate and weaken a twice-elected President of the United States. To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today, you show the American people once and for all that you should not be in the majority in this Congress, and that, I believe, will be your reward. Mr. Speaker, this is a totally prejudged and partisan process that denies a majority of the Members of this House, and the majority of Americans, a vote on a bipartisan compromise--a vote of conscience to censure the President. Mr. Speaker, every one of us submits every 2 years to the collective, electoral wisdom of the people we serve. Mr. Speaker, the American people in their collective, electoral wisdom have twice elected President William Clinton. The American people support the President's performance of his official duties, and they do not want him removed from office. Three months ago when I first reviewed the Starr report, I looked for evidence of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors--the only constitutional grounds for impeachment. No such thing appears in the Starr report. Instead, I found evidence gathered at great public cost--in dollars, $50 million, and in the destruction of privacy that Americans cherish-- evidence of a consensual sexual relationship of the tawdriest nature which the participants tried to hide for its tawdriness. Weeks of Judiciary Committee hearings have uncovered nothing more except the partisan, closed-mindedness of the proceedings. The Republicans' obsession to impeach President Clinton on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds and against the will of most Americans will cause long-lasting divisions in America. The Republicans know they cannot get 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President from office. So, this is a purely partisan exercise in this House designed to humiliate and weaken the twice-elected President of the United States. To my Republican colleagues, by your efforts today you show the American people once and for all that you should not be the majority in Congress and I believe that will be your reward.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding me time. Thousands gathered last night at the west steps of the Capitol to mourn the loss of Matthew Shepard. The vast majority of us did not know Matthew personally, but we were united in our belief that the hate that took Matthew's life is unacceptable in America. We were united in our belief that America still has a long way to go before our gays and lesbians can stop fearing for their lives because of who they are. We were united in our belief that Congress can help prevent and prosecute these terrible crimes by passing tough hate crimes legislation. We were united in our belief that we will never be silenced until gays and lesbians can live without fear. And we were united in our commitment to speak out with our voices and our votes against anti-gay rhetoric, against anti-gay newspaper ads, against anti-gay legislation and against the thuggery that took Matthew Shepard's life. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that this entire body can agree on, it is that the hate that took Matthew Shepard's life should be condemned. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the dean of my Massachusetts delegation, for putting together this opportunity to say something in a public way to honor Joe Kennedy and the service he has provided here in the Congress of the United States; and also to say that I am very happy to join all the others from the Massachusetts delegation and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Patrick Kennedy), the younger Kennedy, who will soon be the elder Kennedy in the House of Representatives, although I am sure we will probably have some others from this far-flung family that has such a great legacy, as those who have already spoken have mentioned. I, probably more than any other Member of the Massachusetts delegation, owe my presence, my opportunity to serve in the House of Representatives, to the assistance, Joe, that you gave, you and Beth together, gave me when I first ran for this seat in 1991. Joe Kennedy and his wife, Beth, campaigned with me in several of the cities, several places in the district that I presently serve, as it was constituted at that time. And I was always very grateful for that assistance, although I must say that, usually, in the events that Joe attended on my behalf, people would stampede by me wondering who the devil that was in the way when they wanted really to get to where he was and to be able to show their love for his father as well as his two uncles and to have a word from the various experiences that they had had over a period of time with them earlier. My campaign staff always said that what I really ought to do on those events was to make certain that I kept right at Joe's elbow. And, of course, if I got right at his elbow, then I could immediately see the cameras trying to figure out how could they get this bald, toothless person out of the picture that they were taking. And, of course, secondly, they would say, well, get yourself in between Beth and Joe. So we tried that. But that did not seem very comfortable, because I always preferred to go off in a corner and watch how Joe Kennedy would work a crowd, a crowd of elders or a crowd of young people, whoever it happened to be, and it really it was really a revelation to me of how one should go about campaigning. There I was in my own district, but to have Joe come in and be able to show how campaigning really ought to be done in the true Massachusetts and true Kennedy tradition, that was certainly something that was important for me to know. Various people have said things here about what Joe fought for and what Joe Kennedy voted for and always able to know that he was fighting for and voting for those things that would help the poorest and the neediest in our society. And, yes, we all have memories of his leadership on matters like the homeless veterans and the School of the Americas. I suppose I remember most closely those several fights over logging rights in the national forests year after year. Sometimes, he would win. Win once, come very close, or win a vote and find a few days later that that vote was snatched away in one way or another among the various nefarious ways that those things can happen in the Congress. And, yet, Joe would come back again each year, every year, to try to put an end to that process of spending millions of dollars on building roads into our national forests to the benefit of a very small number of the largest logging companies, who were then the further beneficiaries not only of the roads that we would build but also of the low-cost timber sales along the way, that kind of fight against the large corporations. And his leadership in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, continually fighting against redlining, that discriminatory practice that has been so detrimental to so many of our older communities, communities of great need. And so I certainly would associate myself with the comments that have been made by several people, perhaps by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Patrick Kennedy). I do not know how he escaped to Rhode Island, but he seems to be quite well entrenched there. And also my dean for somewhere into the 21st century, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), his comments along the same lines. I would say that, indeed, Joe will be back at some point along the way in one of those roles that has been suggested, and he will still be fighting for those things he has fought for here openly, and as a happy warrior, without any quarter given or expected in those fights along the way. Joe, I want to wish you and Beth the very best in that interim period. It has been great to have your friendship and your assistance over this period of time, and I am very happy to be able to call you a friend. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken here tonight. There are many, many other Members that would like to be here but have other commitments. General Leave

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the President's personal behavior was morally wrong and deeply disappointing, but this investigation has gone too far and is hurting the country, our families and our children. Congress is getting nothing done and has now embarked on an open-ended fishing expedition. We should hold the President accountable for his personal conduct, but then we should get back to the work that American families care about. Today, I am voting for a fair, focused and expeditious inquiry into the Kenneth Starr impeachment report. The process I support is specifically designed to focus on the Independent Counsel's report and any other referrals from Kenneth Starr. It would also ensure that this matter would be behind us by the end of the year, the end of this Congress. The Republican impeachment inquiry is designed to produce an investigation without an end--to drag it out until the presidential election in November 2000, two years from now. The stark difference between the two approaches is clear. The Democratic amendment is reasonably focused. The Republican resolution is unlimited. The Democratic amendment is fair. It requires an initial determination regarding the standard for impeachment and the sufficiency of the evidence to meet that standard. The Republican proposal is arbitrary--it requires no preliminary determinations whatsoever. The Democratic amendment is expeditious. The Republican resolution is endless. And, finally, the Democratic amendment is deliberate. It is logical and removes partisanship from the process. The Republican resolution is totally political and reckless in nature. Americans, by a large majority, are clearly saying they want the Congress to get back to issues like improving public education, protecting our social security system, guaranteeing patients' rights to quality health care, curbing teenage smoking, and reforming the way campaigns are financed. We must get back to these critical issues, and we should do it as soon as possible.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of full funding for the Economic Development Agency (EDA). Despite the country's roaring economy, cities and towns in my rural district have suffered huge job losses over the last year, and the EDA has provided critical support to these economically distressed communities. The EDA has funded regional economic planning to maximize job creation and development, provided capital for small businesses, and funded utilities and road construction to create industrial parks in some of the poorest communities in my district. Most recently the EDA has approved funding to plan the renovation of the Colonial Theater in Pittsfield, MA. The Colonial Theater recently received national accolades when the First Lady visited this historic theater during her save America's treasures tour. It is truly an American treasure. With the help of the EDA, a renovated Colonial Theater will serve as a catalyst to generate further economic growth and to revitalize downtown Pittsfield. EDA programs have helped create new jobs and economic growth not just in my district, but throughout the country. We should continue our solid support for this successful agency that has proved to be one of the best hopes for economic renewal in struggling communities.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment and in opposition to the Hefley amendment which follows, which contains the material of the Kolbe amendment but also goes beyond that material. In the difference between the two, the Hefley amendment is an attack upon all our friends in the gay and lesbian community. The Hefley amendment is one more example of unabashed homophobia on the part of some Members of this body. Nondiscrimination in the workplace for gays and lesbians is fundamental. Yet, under current Federal law it is perfectly legal to fire a person from their job in 40 States because of their sexual orientation, and that alone. No person should have their work judged or their opportunity to work denied on the basis of anything but their ability to successfully perform their job. We should not be misled that nondiscrimination in civilian Federal employment for gays and lesbians is somehow granting special or unique rights. Nondiscrimination in employment is already assured to Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, handicap, age. Those are not special or unique rights, they are fundamental. Job performance and job performance alone should be the measure of success in the civil service. By adopting the Hefley amendment, which would deny gays and lesbians the nondiscrimination policy afforded to everyone else, this House would deliberately encourage job discrimination against gays and lesbians. History has been unkind, Mr. Chairman, to those who have tried to stop the march towards equality. All of us have family, friends, or acquaintances who are gay. They are Republicans or Democrats, doctors and lawyers, teachers and corporate CEOs, our brothers and sisters, our daughters and sons. To those who insist on continuing job discrimination against the gay community, I urge them, do not be on the wrong side of history. Let us defeat the Hefley amendment. Vote no on the Hefley amendment and for the Kolbe amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. I particularly want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) for bringing forward this amendment, again, because it is a very valuable effort. The Legal Services Corporation was established by Congress in 1974 to ensure that all Americans, Americans of every stripe, have equal access to the justice system. We should not go back on that commitment, and we cannot expect that some process or program of solely voluntary donations, which has been suggested, by wealthy Americans, will provide poor Americans who cannot afford to pay for access to the justice system, that they would be provided that equal access. But the bill before us would cut Legal Services funding by 50 percent from last year, and that would have an immediate effect on Legal Services clients. Thousands of low income people would be denied their chance of equal justice in my district alone, and that can be multiplied all over the country. Funding over the last four years has gone from $400 million in fiscal year 1995, to $278 million in fiscal year 1996, to $283 million in fiscal year 1997 and again $283 million in fiscal year 1998, all of those years when we have been trying to get control of the enormous deficits that built up year after year during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It is truly mind-boggling to me that in fiscal year 1999, a year when we are expecting a multi-billion dollar surplus, that this Republican Congress would propose cutting Legal Services funding by 50 percent, to a number lower than the funding for Legal Services has been at any time since 1980 under Republican and Democratic Presidents. Now, Mr. Chairman, I could cite dozens of legitimate cases of legal services being provided in my district compared with those that have been suggested as illegitimate cases by various people, as abusive cases of the program, but I just want to cite one that shows the vital role that Legal Services plays in the lives of ordinary people. A woman from my district separated from her husband because of physical abuse, and she had custody of their children. While she was hospitalized recovering from that very physical abuse, her abusive husband obtained a custody order that she was in no position to contest, being that she was in the hospital, and placed the children with his parents. With Legal Services' assistance, this mother was able to regain custody of her children, she was able to end that abusive relationship, obtain housing, and then go on to obtain a Bachelor's Degree, so she can now support herself and her children on her education. We need to ensure that every citizen has access to equal justice. Last year, in similar circumstances, this House voted for the same Mollohan-Fox amendment by a vote of 246 to 176 in a recorded vote. I urge my colleagues to pass the Mollohan-Fox amendment this year by an even larger margin than it was voted by last year, and send an obviously correct message.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What this people's House is doing today is the most cynical action I have seen them take in 7 years in Congress. H.R. 4250, the so-called Patient Protection Act, is based on deception and a big lie. The only thing protected is the insurance industry. The best protection we could provide Americans would be to return decisions about their care to them and their doctors. Instead, this bill drives the wedge between them and their doctor. The people of Massachusetts will be hurt by H.R. 4250 because it overrides patient protections already provided by State law. The mammography and cervical cancer screening for women, blood lead screening for children, bone marrow transplants for victims of leukemia, home health care for the aged, and a good many more are endangered under the Republican bill. My constituents and the people of Massachusetts would be better off with no bill rather that 4250, the insurance industry protection act. But Massachusetts has a large insurance industry, and they will be happy with this Republican bill. Support the Ganske-Dingell bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, that river is completely outside the area that is represented by the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Rules. The people in our area and the people in Connecticut and the governmental authorities in both Massachusetts and Connecticut are deeply concerned about making certain that this process is not slowed down, that it goes forward. All the Environmental Protection Agencies in those States and the law enforcement agencies in those States are agreed upon that. We can argue about the merits of a do-nothing Congress in the case of these ghost riders. I suspect that the American people would be very much served and very happy if we did exactly nothing in relation to such items that have been attached to the report language of the bill. But at least then the Congress would be doing no harm. Surely, to do no harm ought to be the goal for every one of us. But American people at least in my area surely do want the EPA to do its job. So we should adopt and support the Waxman amendment in order to eliminate these ghost riders from this bill.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I agree, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has already said, that no rules, no regulations that relate directly to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocols should be done in any direct way prior to the ratification of that treaty. But all his amendment does is make certain that all activities that are presently authorized by law in various other places will not be stopped on the basis of their having some implication for or some imagined implication for the Kyoto Protocols at some time. Climate change and global warming are terms that we have heard a lot about recently. We know that there has been an enormous change in the ozone layer, a huge gap in the ozone layer that has left the whole continent of Australia in a position where they have to move heavily clothed, or at least they are advised to do so, because there is not that protection against radiation that has been with this planet for all of human existence. Mr. Chairman, we also know, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) pointed out, that some of the hottest summers in the last six centuries have occurred. My figure might be slightly different, but I think at least six of the 10 hottest years in this century have been within this decade. This is a trend that is going on as we speak. National Geographic Magazine, in its last edition, had an article about extensive research by glaciologists in Antarctica where they have now looked through the record of previous ice ages and seen that the whole west Antarctic ice shelf is in danger of collapsing, which could end up in a very short period of time, in a matter of decades at most, raising the water table in this world, the water level in this world by feet. Not just inches, but feet. So I think that the Obey amendment gives us the best chance. We cannot be in this position of only operating on the basis of what will get us through the next election. We have to think that even though our final exams in this body come every 2 years, we have got to think in terms of what is going to be happening 10 years and 20 years and 30 years down the road. The Kyoto Protocols, from my point of view, clearly have flaws in them. They are too weak in many ways. They do not make certain that economic growth in emerging economies in the Third World is done with careful attention to how that energy is being used. Were we to use energy in just one more nation, the Nation of China, at the same rate per capita that we are using, in the same way that our great economy uses energy, if we do not make the changes that will allow us to use energy much more efficiently, to produce much less in the way of greenhouse gases, if China were to produce and use energy in the same manner per capita as we do, we would have no chance, no chance whatsoever of turning this global warming around and getting control of it and stopping the rate at which human activity has affected the normal climate changes that this planet has gone through over a long period of time. So, I would hope very much that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would be adopted so that we make certain that we do not, in our ``know-nothingism'' here, that we do not end up refusing to take what precautions, to add whatever research, to do those activities already allowed by law so that we can use energy in a much more efficient manner. I do not believe the Kyoto Protocols are anti-American in any way whatsoever. They may be flawed but they are certainly not anti-American. They are pro-planet. I hope the Obey amendment will be adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat taken aback by the distinguished chairman's belittling of the importance or impact of the report language here. I have to think that if he really believed that, that that language was so weak, that he ought to be supporting this amendment and we could have saved a great deal of time this evening and he could have sent a letter or two letters or a series of letters to EPA on this point with at least equal effect. In fact, he does not believe that. He knows that this is more important language, and that is why we are having this debate. But I think what we have got, then, is something that I will characterize as ghost riders. The appropriations process that we have before us is haunted by these ghost riders. We passed the bill last night and voted on several of them today, and it attempts to remove several of these ghost riders from that bill and those were unsuccessful. Here we have a series of these antienvironmental ghost riders on today's bill that threaten the public's health and safety. This is a simple strategy that every American can read. The strategy is to tie the hands of the EPA and prevent them from performing the duties that they were statutorily charged with carrying out. The American people sent us here to serve them. The people who sent us here both expect and deserve more. Now we have rivers that are not safe to swim in. The fish from those rivers are not safe to eat. The river banks are not safe for children to play along. I think it is clear that we need an Environmental Protection Agency that is armed with all of its tools. The majority in this House wants to suspend river cleanup and pretend that PCBs and DDT will simply go away on their own. They are not going to go away on their own. Polychloro-biphenyls are among the most stable compounds, chemical compounds that we know. Their solubility in water is extremely low so they get caught up in the sediments. They are not going to stay under the sediments when the rivers' oxbows move. By the normal action of the river, those sediments turn over, those PCBs or DDT. DDT and PCB are similar really only in the fact that they are both heavily polyalginated, and that is really their only similarity other than the fact that they are both proven carcinogenic compounds. The kind of normal action of the river continually releases that material into the environment again time after time and keeps the rivers unclean. However, the PCBs, when ingested by human beings or by fish, they go into the fatty tissues; and that is the route by which they become carcinogenic. Our rivers should be available to the owners of the banks of those rivers, if we have any concern for private ownership, for them to use. They should be available for vacationing families. They should not be closed with ominous ``keep out'' signs with skulls and crossbones that say ``do not eat the fish.'' There is an implication here that dredging is not a tried and proven method. It has been used. It has been a steady part in 23 of the 25 Superfund cleanups involving PCBs or DDT, either one of them, in river sediments. It is a remedial dredging procedure that has been used again and again successfully. There is no question about its having been used and it being tried. The National Academy of Sciences presented a study entitled ``Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways, Cleanup Strategies and Technologies.'' Doing another study when they have already done that in the way they have is basically unnecessary. It is dilatory. It ends up leaving us in a position where we may not be able to reach a conclusion here at all. My district is the Housatonic River. The Housatonic River, when PCBs run down that river, goes on into Connecticut and affects the districts from several Members of the State of Connecticut.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes. But this is what the debate is over. In essence, it really does not matter. If every time we build another road into that area it costs more to build the road than the value of the timber cut that we get, we are costing the taxpayers every time more than we are getting back from that.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes.

Mr. OLVER. I think the gentleman told us what size it is earlier. It was the size of the State of West Virginia.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, in my part of the country we depend upon things like the Economic Action Plan, the Forest Stewardship, the Forest Legacy Program, and yet each year, especially this year, the chairman and the ranking member have to struggle very hard to find ways to fund those programs and to keep them running, based upon sound industry practices to promote economic development and natural resources protection. But each of them is being squeezed down over time and, instead, we are doing something which is a major subsidy to the industry by all indications from how it has operated and what the GAO says and what the Forest Service says about the net cost of the program in this instance there. There are other costs involved in such a program. We would expect it to cost both in tourism and fishing, as I have already mentioned. And here we are, while we are trying to get other countries to protect their rain forests and actually paying, in some cases putting money into that, here we are with our taxpayers being sent a bill to cut down our own last remaining or major remaining temperate rain forest. So with all of those thoughts under consideration, I would urge that Members of this body support the Miller amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for me to tell whether we are at the sublime or the ridiculous end of the evening given where we are at this point. My mind is certainly reeling from the discussion about the millions of board feet in different ways that that would happen. But the one thing that I think I pick up out of this is that we have built roads, and we have harvested timber. The Forest Service says that, in 1997, the timber program in the Tongass cost $33 million to the U.S. taxpayers. So the combination of road building and timber harvest costs us $33 million. Going back some years before that, from 1992 to 1994, the GAO says that the costs over that 3-year period was $100 million. The cost to the taxpayers, which again means the roads that were built, whatever were built, and whatever access that provided, and whatever was cut on that basis has cost the taxpayers $100 million. In the more recent time that is at least a third, at least a third, more than a third of the total timber program losses that the U.S. Forest Service has sustained. It would appear that each sale in the Tongass is yielding a loss in substantial part because of the costs to the taxpayers of building the roads. We are now being told, well, yes, but we are not talking about building new roads but only of reconstructing the old ones which certainly are expensive in their own right. In order to get to more timber where the major part of the problem or a major part of the problem is that the markets and the weather extremes in the circumstances mean that logging is going to be basically not profitable without the substantial subsidy of the building of the access to it. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans would recognize this combination as a bad deal for the taxpayers and prefer to stop digging the hole deeper as we go. Earlier this year, and I recognize that the Tongass is not part of the agreement, that is part of the issue, that the agreement was reached by Congress and the Forest Service to end the subsidized road building in roadless areas in the national forests. Why? Because generally it is environmentally destructive. It produces erosion and siltation of the waterways and that that has an adverse effect upon habitat, particularly because of silt and waterways for fishing stocks. So the program of building new roads into national forests has been ended essentially except for that in Alaska. So the bill creates a special case in Alaska to allow this road building to continue, whether new or I am not sure after the discussion, although I listened very carefully to it, whether it is new or just reconstruction of the roads that are already there to do this in Alaska in the Tongass, which is our only remaining temperate rain forest. So the road building program there is really a jobs program. For those who want less government or smaller government, then I would suggest that we ought to be voting against it in order to cut out wasteful corporate welfare. From my point of view, coming from the Northeast, it is sort of an add-insult-to-injury, in a sense, because the subsidy that would be required here to do this timber cut, which by all the figures in the past has been continually done at a loss to the U.S. taxpayers, that subsidy comes out of the hides of other parts of the country. In my area and congressional district, the largest manufacturing in my district is paper manufacturing, and there is a good deal of timbering that goes on in some of the States in the Northeast. But we have need for programs and use programs.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am surely not meaning to infer that we are cutting the last piece of rain forest that is the size of this Chamber or any such thing. Rain forests and the continuous convergence of cutting all around rain forests, whether they be in Costa Rica or in Sumatra or Borneo or the Amazon or in the Tongass, which is our largest and one that does contain substantial old growth forests which have never been cut, it is the major remaining temperate rain forest that we have. We are cutting into it.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, surely, over a very long period of time. We plant at best not for our own generation, but for our grandchildren's generation. So it takes a very long time to grow back.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the very points that the gentleman is making, the gentleman is saying 500-year-old trees that are there, that have taken a good portion of that time, certainly they were probably merchantable, timberable a good number of years ago, but not by any means 200 or 300 years ago.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).