John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Miller amendment. This is an amendment that would provide a very tiny amount of money for an authorized program, the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program. $2 million is what would be proposed here, what is proposed here in the amendment. It has an offset, which is as benign as any offset that anybody could come up with in trying to fund something that is entirely legitimate. We are trying to find $2 million out of a $10-plus billion bill. That is $2 million. That is not two percent, it is 2/100ths of one percent of the $10-plus billion bill that we are talking about. Every Member in this body, from whatever district they hail from, whatever State, whatever kind of district, they have communities which could benefit from this kind of legislation. In my area, there are two communities that have asked for just $50,000 and $100,000 respectively under the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program, which has not been possible because there are no funds in that authorized program. They would, of course, have to match it. It is one of those cases where you build a partnership on the part of the Federal Government and the State or local government, particularly in this instance the local government, to do something which is of great benefit to people. So I would urge Members to listen to their mayors in those communities, or whoever is their chief operating officer, in those communities that are struggling to find recreational opportunities for their youth. It is summertime. There are so many opportunities for kids to find trouble. It is in the ballparks and the playgrounds, those active places for recreation, that kids go and stay out of trouble. Our public parks are where the McGwires and the Griffeys hit their first home runs, where the Grant Hills played their first competitive basketball. But beyond that, urban parks offer families brief refuge from urban decay, from bus exhaust and traffic congestion. The urban park, with its water fountains and little league baseball fields, is the place where the vast majority of Americans are going to be spending their leisure time this summer and around the clock, not just in the summertime, but around the clock. It is a place where many children first learn team sports. It is the place where families get together to fly a kite or bike or walk or rollerblade along a river greenway. One of my particular interests, Mr. Chairman, has been that many of our urban centers, particularly in the earlier settled parts of the country, many of our urban centers run along riverways that not so long ago functioned as industrial sewers. Because we have put billions of dollars, billions upon billions of dollars into the Clean Water Act over a period of years, and because of the more recent industrial restructuring that has gone on, these riverways now are a place that could be restored as green space to provide for recreation, a true wealth of recreation for use by our urban families. In those cases, communities that I could name one right after the another, and, again, every Member could name in their own districts, these communities need some help with the restoration to make these areas available for their families for recreation. That help could come clearly from the Urban Park Recreation and Recovery Program that we are proposing here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is proposing, just $2 million, with a benign offset to be used. Some communities have recreational facilities that are in such poor shape they endanger kids' safety and health. These dollars could help repair, reconstruct and rehabilitate such facilities. In the past, these grants have been provided recreation for the disabled, repaired swimming pools, resurfaced tennis and basketball courts, purchased picnic tables, created arts and craft areas, fitness trails and bocci courts for senior citizens. The public knows that this is money that is well spent. They expect money well spent to be appropriated by their government. So I urge support for the Miller amendment.

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here that there is no one in this room, whether they are on one side or the other side of this issue, who can claim that the family dairy farmers in dairy farms in their part of the country are somehow prospering under the present system of milk marketing orders that we are using, not if they happen to live in upper New York State, where the gentleman who chairs the Committee on Rules comes from; not if they happen to live in Wisconsin, where the ranking member comes from; not if they happen to be the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, coming from Louisiana; or the gentleman from Vermont, in an exporter State; or myself, in an importer State, in Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in the agriculture authorization bill in 1997, we authorized a limited set of changes. After looking at a number of different options, the Secretary of Agriculture has come up with two favorite options, two options, really, 1(a) and 1(b); under 1(a), which is the more moderate of these, a small number of changes, nearly the status quo; and 1(b), which is a pretty radical change, at least as viewed by farmers, as viewed by farmer cooperatives all over the country. More than a majority of Members of both the House and Senate, more than a majority of both parties in both branches have written to the Secretary of Agriculture asking him to choose option 1(a), there is no question, from all parts of this country, except, by the way, from the area within a couple of hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, which somehow is the center of the universe as far as milk is concerned. From other parts of this country, that is where that majority comes from, from States all over this country. They do that because they believe that it will slow, at least slow if not prevent, because I do not think it will be prevented, the move to milk monopolies. They believe that it protects the capacity to have consumers have access to a fresh and local supply of milk. They believe that option 1(b) would accelerate the loss of family dairy farms in places all over the country except for those within a short distance from Eau Claire. It is no wonder the Members from Wisconsin are getting up, given that option 1(b) clearly changes the playing field. Who is to know in this arcane system whether we have a level playing field or not, if it may be slightly tilted; but this amendment, as it has been offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, would tilt that whole system very heavily in the direction of accelerating the loss of family dairy farms in other parts of this country; also because the majority believes it is unfair to then impose a system which clearly then has relative beneficial effects for one portion of this country at the expense of every other portion of this country. So this is a carefully crafted proposal to extend by 6 months, so that the appropriators and the authorizers can see exactly what it is that is put forward as a milk marketing system by the Secretary of Agriculture, and so they can respond within the fiscal year that that goes into effect. That is what this extension is about. I think the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) said it quite well, that that is what this is about, making certain that the appropriators and authorizers for all of these issues can look at it within that fiscal year that we would be in. I certainly hope that the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden). (Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), our ranking member, for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) a truly ``gentle man,'' for his leadership and his evenhandedness in putting together this bill, our bill, H.R. 4059. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) and their excellent staff, particularly Hank Moore and Tom Forhan, have made my 2 years on the subcommittee a learning experience and a pleasure. On my side of the aisle, what can I say about the retiring ranking member that has not already been said in the newspapers here in Washington and in North Carolina? The gentleman has made a lasting mark on this subcommittee as both chairman and ranking member, and he will be greatly missed. We all wish him the best from here. This bill is as good as I think it can be, given the allocation that has really been foisted upon the subcommittee by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and I certainly urge its very quick passage. I must send up a couple of signals, which lie somewhere between yellow cautionary and red crisis, in relation to the whole subject of military construction, because this bill, if it were enacted exactly as it is, would be more than $2 billion below the appropriated level just four years ago. That is a huge hit on a budget which is really in the $10 billion category, $10 billion level in the first place. So one might ask, what does it matter? Some Members think that the military construction bill is all hangars and armories, but it is really a lot more than that. It is environmental compliance and cleanup. It is energy conservation. It is hospital and medical facilities. It is child development centers. It is family housing for the growing numbers of our peacetime service personnel who have spouses and children. I would like to focus on just that one last category, the family housing program, for just a minute, pointing out that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), when he was Chair, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in the past several years that he has been the Chair for the committee, have labored mightily each year to support the family housing program and do the best they could with the numbers that we have been given. But if this bill is enacted, as I am sure, if it is enacted as it has been proposed here under the constraints of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the program for family housing will be down 19 percent, down in actual dollars by 19 percent since fiscal year 1996, from fiscal year 1996 to the present. I just would like to address, call Members' attention, call the membership's attention to the sections in the report on H.R. 4059 on family housing, a report that points out that military family housing and the need for that has changed with the all volunteer structure of the force. Whereas 40 years ago only about 40 percent of our military personnel had families, now, 40 years later, it is over 60 percent who have families. Today the family housing program is the quality of life incentive that attracts and retains, and I am quoting really from the report, dedicated individuals to serve in the military. The housing deficiencies are a severe disincentive to reenlistment. Now, it has been the Department of Defense policy that married couples will live off base with their families whenever it is possible and when there is housing available, and a good number of them do live off base. One out of roughly 8 is living off base in substandard housing because there is not adequate housing in the area for them. And in spite of the policy, with that policy, and because there is not adequate housing available, we have under the Department of Defense a total of over 300,000 units of housing on base, and the majority of that housing, the majority of those units are substandard. And in order to do the replacement and bring up to standard those housing units would require something like $15 billion. Now, with the kind of appropriation that we are having forced upon this subcommittee by the terms of the Balanced Budget Act, it is almost inevitable that we are not going to be able to catch up on this family housing need, that we are going to fall further behind on that, despite what I have said is the yeoman effort on the part of the ranking member, when he was chairman, and the present chairman to try to deal with that. I just want to speak to that as one issue or problem when that budget is dropping by as much as it is in the appropriated, final appropriated levels. In totality, this budget funds training and housing and health care and child care for the men and women who do our dirty work, and they deserve every penny that is in this bill and they deserve more.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the community leadership of my constituent, Mr. Herb Wheeler of Athol, Massachusetts. On May 20th, 1998, the North Quabbin Chamber of Commerce will be honoring Mr. Wheeler as Citizen of the Year. Mr. Wheeler is the co- owner, with his wife Colleen, of Flowerland Florist, located in Athol. The prestigious Citizen of the Year award is given to the person who has most exemplified selfless dedication to the pursuit of economic prosperity for the North Quabbin region. From the beginning of his career, Herb Wheeler understood how important a thriving retail climate was for Main Street, not only to his own success, but to that of the whole town. Herb has worked diligently to bring retail businesses into Athol's downtown. His interest and involvement led him to the Athol Merchant's Association, of which he eventually became president. Through Herb's leadership, this organization grew into a group who's proactive commitment to economic development is unsurpassed in the region. Herb Wheeler has become even more involved in his community as the years have progressed. In addition to his leadership role with the Athol Merchant's Association, Herb is an executive board member of the North Quabbin Chamber of Commerce, a board member of Athol-Orange Public Access Television, and a member of the Athol/Royalston School District Building Committee. I join the Chamber in saluting Herb Wheeler's contributions, and look forward to working with Herb and the North Quabbin Chamber of Commerce on future economic development endeavors.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MILCON veto override. Most of the projects on the President's cancellation list were in the Pentagon's future years defense plan. All of them are executable this fiscal year. Three of the projects were Air Force Reserve projects, and together they represent 50 percent of the Air Force Reserve's construction budget for fiscal year 1998. While the active Air Force and the Air National Guard have suffered some cuts over the last few years, the Air Force Reserve's MILCON Program is literally being driven out of existence. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget submission includes only one new Air Force Reserve project. One project. That's it. Enough is enough. The MILCON bill was the only appropriations bill where fiscal year 1998 spending was below fiscal year 1997. I urge all of my colleagues to support motion to override.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment which would reduce funding for the economic development agency [EDA] by $90 million. The EDA plays a vital role in providing support to communities in high economic distress. An anecdote from my district illustrates how the EDA can work for all of our cities and towns. A large community in western Massachusetts just experienced sizable defense industry layoffs. Modest economic development money can inject economic life into communities facing similar hardships. EDA grants fund utilities construction to create industrial parks, provide capital for small business loans, fund regional economic planning for small communities to coordinate job creation efforts, and turn former military bases into centers for new businesses. EDA funds help to build infrastructure, attract private investment, and create jobs. This is the kind of help that every district needs. I urge my colleagues to preserve EDA funding and reject the Hefley amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment, which would eliminate about a quarter of the funding for the Economic Development Administration. The author of the amendment has said that there are some 62 agencies that overlap or duplicate the economic development efforts of this agency. Yet, this is the one that we all know as an effective agency. This is the one that my colleague chooses to try to eliminate. We all know that the Economic Development Administration supports communities that are in economic distress. We all know that modest economic development money can breathe new life into the communities that are facing financial hardship. In the years, only a little more than six, that I have served in this Congress, EDA has funded regional economic planning for small communities to maximize their job creation and development potentials, EDA has provided capital for small businesses, EDA has helped turn former military bases into centers for new business, and EDA has funded utilities and road construction to create industrial parks in some of the poorest communities in my district, communities like Gardner and Fitchburg and Pittsfield, MA. But EDA also provides emergency funds for communities in crisis situations. The town of Colrain, MA, was headed for an economic disaster here recently when its largest employer decided to close down, that it was going to simply close, thereby causing a ripple effect on the town's second largest employer, which was located on the same industrial site. The two companies shared electric power, waste water, and fire safety infrastructures. Faced with the need to make huge capital investments to remain alone on site, the second company was about to move its manufacturing elsewhere as well. With my support, Colrain turned to EDA for emergency funding. And together with private, State, and local funding, and in this case no one of these could have done it alone, but they did it, they turned to the EDA for the emergency funds to finance the infrastructure improvement needed to retain a critical business and allow that business to grow. EDA answered Colrain's call for help. Colrain's application is moving through its final phases, and the serious job loss has been averted in my district. Let me stress again that in the Colrain, MA, case EDA funding is only part of a larger package of State and local and private funding. No one of those entities would have been able to go it alone. But EDA's, in this case, modest Federal half-a-million-dollar commitment had a major impact in securing and leveraging, as other people have already said, the other funding sources and the private monies that have to go into such economic development. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to preserve the EDA funding and to reject the Hefley 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 restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I particularly want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing forward this 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 now, and we cannot expect that solely voluntary donations will provide poor people with equal access to the justice system. 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 this country. The Legal Services Corporation helps people who cannot afford legal representation. Legal Services attorneys in my district have helped clients contest housing evictions, avoid termination of government benefits, secure restraining orders in domestic and family abuse cases, and they have helped collect child support payments for families. 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, as abusive cases of the program. But here is just one story 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 for the abuse, her husband obtained a custody order 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 the abusive marriage, to obtain housing, and then to go on to obtain a bachelor's degree, so she can now support herself and her children in a legitimate way. We need to ensure that every citizen has access to equal justice in a similar kind of a manner. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan- Fox amendment as a good amendment to assure Americans equal access to equal justice.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Nello Ricardi of Westfield, MA, in recognition of his selection as the Westfield Democratic Committee's Democrat of the Year. Mr. Ricardi has had a long history in organized labor and politics. Nello began his career at the Savage Arms, Inc. in Chicopee, MA, which had a labor force in direct affiliation with the AFL-CIO. He served in a variety of positions in his local work force chapter, including shop steward, trustee, treasurer, vice president, and business manager. Nello joined the U.S. Marine Corps and served in the South Pacific during World War II. After World War II, he received a full scholarship from Massachusetts AFL-CIO to attend Harvard Business School. Following graduation from Harvard, he served as the New England field representative for the national AFL-CIO, where he was responsible for 131 direct affiliates in New England. He took the lead on organizing locals, negotiating contracts, and handling arbitrations and grievances. He was able to achieve some significant organizing successes, such as American Optical, Dennison and Marble Mines to name a few. In the later years Nello became the New England legislative director for the national AFL-CIO and served for a short period as a legislative lobbyist at the national level. He then went on to work at the education program at the George Meany Center in Silver Spring, MD before his retirement. In total, Nello spent 27 years with the national AFL-CIO. Nello has been a member of the Westfield Democratic Committee for over 20 years. He is a very modest man that does not like the limelight. He is, simply put, ``a doer,'' volunteering for whatever the committee needs. It is people like Nello that make the difference in government and politics. I am pleased to pay tribute to Nello Ricardi, someone who has been a great asset to his community, to Massachusetts, to New England, and to his country.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Castle substitute and against the Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment and in support of the Castle substitute. The Istook amendment mandates parental notification, tantamount to parental consent, for birth control services under title X. It is tough for a sexually active teenager to talk about contraception with a parent. Even for a teen who has a close, supportive relationship with her parents. For an adolescent with abusive parents, it can be downright dangerous. Because they fear parental disapproval or punishment, many teenagers will only use confidential family planning services. When parental permission is required, these teenagers tend to delay or altogether avoid, reproductive health care at great danger to themselves rather than abstain from the sexual activity that leads to children bearing children. We all would like to believe that requiring parental consent will reduce teen sexual activity. Unfortunately there is no such evidence. We all agree that family participation is ideal and title X counselors are required to encourage teen clients to talk with their families about birth control. But not all adolescents can involve their families in sexual decisions and the judicial bypass in this amendment for such teens is a farce. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Castle substitute. It is a reasonable proposal.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished public service career of Mr. Joseph R. Lefebvre, Jr. Joseph Lefebvre is currently a member of the board of selectmen of Adams, MA, one of my Berkshire County towns. He has served with distinction on the board since 1985. Mr. Lefebvre has been contributing to Adams in numerous roles his entire adult life. In addition to being a town meeting member and holding the position of custodian of the Adams Library for over two decades each, Joseph Lefebvre has served as a member of the Housing Authority, Cemetery Commission, Board of Appeals, and even as a Constable--all during the 1970's and 1980's. His commitment to public service undoubtably touched the lives of nearly every citizen in his community. Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 1997, the town of Adams honored Joseph with an appreciation banquet. I have represented Berkshire County since 1991, and I want to add my name to the long list of citizens and officials who have paused to say, thank you, to Joseph Lefebvre for everything he has done over the years.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I congratulate the chairman and ranking member and their staffs for producing a solid bipartisan bill. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for the report language directing FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] to give priority to the processing of hydroelectric licenses for which there are compelling applications. This language is important to the city of Holyoke to prevent any delay in FERC's review of competing dam license applications. Such a delay may place an undue burden on the city of Holyoke. I would also ask that the chairman hold the House language in conference, as it is more precise then the language in the Senate bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his assistance and I look forward to supporting the bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment to eliminate the Tobacco Crop Insurance Program. Today, we provide crop insurance to 65 of the 1,600 crops grown in the United States. Nutrition-packed vegetables like broccoli and squash are not eligible for crop insurance. But we spend millions of dollars to insure the growth of tobacco. Millions to promote a crop that is unlike any other covered by the Federal Crop Insurance Program. A crop that is neither food nor fiber. A crop that neither provides us with food for our table nor clothes for our backs. This amendment eliminates the $34 million taxpayer subsidy for crop insurance for tobacco growing. Tobacco--when used according to directions--harms and kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. To combat this health threat, Mr. Chairman, America spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year to curtail tobacco use. We spend billions of dollars each year to treat emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease. In my State, Massachusetts, over 10,000 people die each year from smoking-related illnesses. And the costs of treating those illnesses in my State alone totals more than $1 billion. Across America, tobacco use is the single largest drain on the Medicare trust fund. Tobacco costs Medicare more than $10 billion and Medicaid more than $5 billion per year. We now have irrefutable evidence of the damage tobacco use wreaks on our citizens and our Federal budget. The proposed settlement between the State attorneys general and the tobacco industry requires a payout of $368 billion over 25 years. This legal settlement is a testament to the disasters of tobacco use. While far from perfect, it represents a step in the right direction for advancing public heath. Clearly, in the case of tobacco, the time has come to bring our agricultural policy in line with our health policy. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always eager to let the market provide for other sectors of our economy. They do not want to subsidize community service, education standards, economic development, or the arts. I say to my colleagues, we should not be subsidizing the growth of tobacco. Tobacco is a lucrative crop. It yields an average of $4,000 per acre; $4,000 compared with a yield of only $200 for an acre of wheat. Despite the ability of tobacco growers to pay the cost of crop insurance, we continue to fund large portions of their premiums. So, not only do farmers see high profits, but they also have taxpayers footing the bill for their insurance. Mr. Chairman, we should not subsidize tobacco. We should not promote the growth of a crop that kills. Support the Lowey amendment and let the market provide for tobacco plants.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Budget Enforcement Act because it would widen the divide between the wealthy and the poor in America. The legislation enforces spending and revenue targets agreed to in the budget agreement by a combination of entitlement caps and deferred tax breaks. But the bill treats entitlements that benefit the poor differently from tax cuts that benefit the wealthy. This act would permanently cut entitlement spending if it exceeds its cap while it places only a temporary delay on tax cuts if revenues fall short. The bill protects the capital gains cuts for the wealthy, but leaves basic assistance to families, children and the elderly on the chopping block. Mr. Speaker, this Congress does not need another scheme to widen the gap between the rich and families struggling to get by. I urge that we vote against the Budget Enforcement Act today.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This is a good bipartisan bill, I support it strongly. As with the gentleman from Arizona, who was speaking as I came in a few minutes ago, this is my first year on the subcommittee. I have enjoyed very much working on the subcommittee, working with the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and with the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. I want particularly to commend the chairman for his hard work, for his bipartisan work, his very fair work and work of the staff on both the majority and minority side. I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], for his help and leadership for all of us who are on the minority. I must say that we have all benefited from the fact that the chairman worked very closely with the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], in making this a good bill. The strengths of the bill are many. Many have already been mentioned. I just want to add a couple of comments to this. There is a strong thread of commitment, commitment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] as chairman, to safety, airline safety, transportation safety in general that is reflected in this bill. I want to add my support to that commitment. Air travel is growing. In a good economy there is a great increase in air travel. I note that there is a large increase in the airport improvement fund which I think is very important. We also should shortly have a new FAA administrator, so I think there will be better days in the future for the FAA. The bill also provides the beginning of funding that is necessary to modernize air traffic control systems in the airport management systems. I want to thank the ranking member for eloquently stating some other needs. I would express that as a need for and a hope that we will be able to do better by the end of this cycle in operating assistance for transit in order to keep fares affordable and to keep routes available. There is also a need that I recognize for additional Amtrak operating assistance. I do appreciate the increased funding for the capital funding of the Northeast corridor. And if we can get over the hump of operating assistance for Amtrak for the time that is necessary to get that Northeast corridor capital funding in place, then we should be able to see Amtrak's recovery. In the meantime, this bill continues our commitment to the capital needs for the electrification of the Northeast corridor, which I think is very important. I urge support for this legislation in its entirety.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. The crux is that we can look at the education tax proposals, we can look at the child tax proposals, and we can look at the capital gains tax proposals and the estate tax proposals and all the others. And each one of them has to be looked at and analyzed, and they have been analyzed by the economists both on the left and the right, and by those columnists and editorialists. And, ultimately, when we put it all together, ultimately when we put it all together, it just turns out that the Democratic plan gives these 60 percent of families in the middle, out of the combination, more than twice as much of the total tax reduction. And it is equal in the different plans. The total is the same in the different plans. But the Democratic plan and the President's plan gives more than twice as much of that money to these middle income families, the 60 percent in the middle, whereas the Republican plan gives four times as much actually than the Democratic plan to that wealthiest, that wealthiest one out of five families in this country. That is the major difference. That is what people understand about this. In its gross overall form, that is what I think people understand this year.

Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman would yield further for just a moment. I think the President has made it absolutely clear what he will require in order for him to sign this legislation. He wants very badly to sign legislation for a tax reduction, but he is going to make certain that it goes chiefly to the middle class. He is going to make certain that it does not explode deficits in the outyears so that we do not go through what we went through in the 1980's with the deficits reaching as high as $330 billion a year, as they would have been in fiscal year 1993 if we had not, as the gentleman from Michigan said earlier, if we had not gone through that very tough exercise in 1993. And thirdly that it must encourage education, because that is the way that our people are going to grow in their opportunities, in their capacities to contribute to America and to their families.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly want to thank him for taking the leadership, as he has continued to do, to bring these groups together to discuss this time after time after time. I wanted to comment on exactly where he was going in one of his very recent comments there, wondering how do the people, how do people make a decision as to who to believe in a situation like this. In very hotly contested, controversial issue like this, there are claims and counterclaims that are laid down by different people. I have been in the Congress, now in my 7th year, and it is easy to become quite cynical. I often wonder how it is that people do make those, reach those conclusions. In this particular year in the tax debate that we have been going through, it seems to me it has been particularly difficult for the Republicans to sustain their deliberate misinformation, deliberate misinformation here about exactly who it is that is going to benefit from their tax cut plan. Because, as you pointed out, the Democratic House and the Republican House and the President and the Senate, which seems to have one plan all its own, but at least those four plans, there are four different plans, all of them are intended to give, because it was an agreement along those lines, exactly the same total amount of tax reduction in a period. So my colleague from Connecticut points out that the opposite side only counts the portion, because it makes their point, that it is going to be done in the first five years; whereas the agreement that had been reached between the President and the congressional leadership was to cover a whole 10-year period and to make certain that they would not cause a return of deficits in the longer haul. So it is much easier in this term, in this case to look at what the totals are. Economists from the conservative think tanks, economists from the progressive think tanks have all looked at the different plans and totaled up exactly how they are distributed over the period of time. Very easy to do. Hundreds and hundreds of columns have been written and editorials have been written in newspapers of every stripe all over the country. Somehow out of all of this, out of all of these columns, people have listened. They have watched programs like this. They have read the editorials and the columns, and out of it all there is now the returns as to how people are thinking about it coming back in the polling that has been done. A majority of Americans think and believe that the rich would benefit more from the Republican plan than from the Democratic plan. Of course, that is right. And Americans are very wise that way ultimately because they have come to understand that a Republican tax plan is going to benefit the rich. That is just a given about politics. And then out of this they also have shown in the polling that they prefer the Democratic tax plan over the Republican plan by at least a 2-to-1 margin. That is very understandable, too. One thing that comes out, however you cut it, slice things up, I want to use kind of an example and take my hand and use as the example cutting all of American families into five parts. The 20 percent of the wealthiest families over here, then down the line to the 20 percent who have the lowest income over at this end. And the statisticians who have looked at this show quite clearly that the 20 percent wealthiest Americans under the Republican plan get two- thirds. Two-thirds of all of that equal amount total of tax reduction goes to this group. In the Democratic plan, as it came through the House of Representatives, in the Democratic plan and in the President's plan, it turns out that two-thirds of all of the tax reduction goes to these three groups of families that represent 60 percent of all American families which are the American middle class. So it is perfectly clear why 60 percent of Americans ought to prefer the Democratic plan, because at least that 60 percent of the families do better, do twice as well at least, all of the families in that middle income area do at least twice as well as they would under the Republican plan, whereas under the Republican plan of course it is only the very wealthiest 20 percent who get the vast majority of the tax reduction. So there is a great deal of wisdom that comes through and people pick up out of all of what has been said and listening to it all very carefully. They come through with the right answer, that they should prefer the Democratic plan because the Democratic plan gives the vast majority of the money to the great middle class, that group of families in the center. Then I would like to note one other thing that shows up from the polling, and that is that Americans prefer very strongly, by better than a 2-to-1 margin, the way the Democratic plan deals with cuts, tax cuts attributed to education benefits and those that relate to child tax benefits. The Americans, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, prefer the Democratic plan on education and for child tax breaks over the Republican plan, which puts more of the money into capital gains tax cuts and estate tax cuts. Now, why do they prefer the Democratic plan on education, for instance? Well, part of the President's proposal here has been that he is demanding and he is going to defend the idea that there is going to be $35 billion of tax reduction to provide benefits for people to be able to send their kids to college. That was part of the agreement that was reached between the President and the leadership here in the Congress from the majority party. The difference is that the President, in his plan for giving education tax cuts, would allow a HOPE scholarship to provide up to $1,500, when it is fully phased in, for families in the first 2 years of college. And then in the second 2 years of college, he would allow 20 percent of their tuition costs, up to tuitions of $10,000, to be given in the way of a tax credit. The Republicans cut those benefits that would go to families that are trying to send their kids to college; would cut those deeply. The gentleman's chart up there shows that it is almost in half for the HOPE scholarship, in the instance that the gentleman had done, but then to top it off, to top it off, really to add to the insult of cutting the education benefits in half essentially from what the President agreed to, they then raised taxes on graduate students, who also are going to school. They raise taxes on the families who work for colleges and universities, whose kids are going to those same colleges and universities where they work. They would see an increase in taxes for them. And there are hundreds of thousands of them. And they would raise taxes on the men and women who teach in our colleges and universities by changing and increasing the taxes that they would pay on their retirement plans. So what we have here is a situation where an agreement was reached to provide $35 million of tax reduction that would help people. And it is particularly middle income families who would be helped here, to help families put their kids through college. The Republicans have been trying to weasel out on that agreement that they had reached. So that what they are doing is cutting the tax reduction less than what the President has asked for and, in fact, applying taxes to those groups that I mentioned, to the graduate students, to the families who work at the different colleges and universities, and to the people who teach at those colleges and universities. That is a pretty weasely thing to do and it is very much against the agreement that had been reached. On the other hand, if we look at what the proposals are in terms of capital gains, the Republican way of dealing with the capital gains reduction is to give a large tax break to the super rich. Because it is the super rich who have the greatest amount, by a vast majority, by a vast margin of the capital gains in this country anyway. It is the people who have made their vast amount of money on the runup in the stock market and so forth, the very wealthy, who have large amounts in the stock market. They would get a huge benefit out of the capital gains tax reduction that has been proposed. In the Democratic proposal, middle income families who, yes, some people have a few stocks, I even have a few stocks, but I am not one of those who plays around in the stock market, but I do have a few stocks. But for most middle income families, that three out of five families in the middle, whose income probably lies somewhere between $17,000 a year and somewhere around $75,000 or $80,000 a year, for those families the main thing that they would get or ever see a capital gain on would be their home. Under the Democratic plan we provide for that capital gains tax reduction on an individual's home, so middle income families get that. But we would not give it for speculations on stock or for the sale of collectibles, stamp collections and coin collections and things of that sort. We would not do that because that is something that would benefit only the super rich. We would prefer, on the Democratic side, to give the tax breaks to lower income working families in ways of allowing their kids to go to college and giving it on homes and small businesses and the transfers of small businesses, where most of the jobs in this country are provided anyway. That is how the Democratic plan would give out the capital gains tax reductions. So people, again, prefer or they have shown by a better than 2 to 1 margin that they prefer the Democratic plan on the tax reductions and the President's plan on the education tax reductions over the way the Republicans deal with the education breaks, and would prefer our plan for its education cuts over the Republican plan which has those capital gains tax cuts that I have described as going very much to the very wealthy in this vote. Again, they are showing the wisdom that Americans ultimately show in these sorts of situations. They have picked up exactly what it is that is going on out of all the rhetoric, out of all the claims and counterclaims, out of all the columns written and all the analyses being done on this, and clearly understand quite clearly which of these plans would be to their greater benefit.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the House for yielding the additional minute. I think the answers to the ranking member's questions, the answers to those whys, is that they really should not proceed until all of those conditions are met. In truth, we do need to have that kind of research done. But it ought to be done in a case where it is clearly cofunded by industry as well as by the government, and in a situation where it is peer reviewed and where there can be a broad participation in that research.

Mr. OLVER. I will continue yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out here that Citizens Against Government Waste, which held a number of hearings, a group that was invited to a number of hearings to put a focus on government waste during the 104th Congress, had put forward 7 criteria on which to judge what might be considered waste. Their criteria included cases where the request was made by one chamber of commerce; where it was not authorized; number three, where it was not competitively awarded, not peer reviewed, in essence; four, where it was not requested in the President's budget; five, greatly exceeds the President's budget or the request of the previous year's funding; and, six, had not been the subject of congressional hearing. Six out of the seven, this project violates. So what I think here, let me go back and just reiterate, what we are comparing is a $48 million increase in veterans' health services to fulfill a promise that we have made to our veterans for a continuation of their veterans' health programs, versus a program, a proposal which is at best not ready for this stage, where it is meant as a partnership, there is no industry portion in the partnership. The money all would come out of a budget from an agency, namely FEMA, which did not request the money at all and which has written at least to the Senate chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD to indicate that they have serious questions about this. And, Mr. Chairman, I will ask to submit this letter into the Record during the whole House section of this session. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the amendment would be adopted.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am always hesitant to follow my colleague from Florida. It is almost like being against motherhood to do so. But I want to speak in favor of the amendment that has been put forward by the ranking member. I think what we have here is a comparison. On the one hand we have a proposal to add $48 million in this amendment to the veterans' health services program which everyone understands is needed, where we have people and we have made a promise to our veterans that we were going to provide them with health care in their lives, particularly when we have so many of our World War II veterans who are at an age when they are in need of health care. So that $48 million on the one hand is replacing monies that are otherwise below, added to funding which is otherwise below what is needed to keep the funds at the level of services that are presently there. On the other hand we have a very questionable kind of an expenditure for this wind simulation center. The $60 million reduction which we have been talking about is just stage one, phase one of a construction program for this wind simulation center, the sum total of which is going to be $181 million, and all of it is going to come out of FEMA, and apparently from all indications there is not a single cent that has yet been put into this from any of the industries that might be a part of it. Now, it was not in the President's budget. It was not even requested by either the Department of Energy or by FEMA. So here we have an uncooked idea, a half-baked idea being put in in place of adequate funding for veterans' health care services. Now, I would like to mention the testimony of the gentleman who is the head of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, his testimony before the Committee on Science, which I served on in the previous Congress as a minority member, the statement by W. John Denson. He pointed out in his testimony that the INEL maintains critical technology skills for nuclear operations, nuclear safety and nuclear waste management. The INEL is a multiple purpose laboratory supporting all the missions of the department. The INEL has been designated by DOE as the lead lab for research and development for EM mixed waste. They also lead the national programs for spent nuclear fuels management and national low level waste management. Now, I say this because what that says is that the mission of the particular DOE laboratory is far from the proposed area. And to follow up on that, we have had a lot of testimony in the 104th Congress before the Committee on Science about this question of just how we were to use our energy laboratories. The GAO study asked experts on energy policy and former DOE executives, including several of the previous Secretaries of DOE, their views on it, and they by a substantial majority said that we should not be taking on missions at the DOE laboratories that are beyond the missions of DOE itself. Then we have the Galvin Commission that was mentioned by one of the previous speakers, a major commission to look at the future of alternative futures for the Department of Energy national laboratories. They strongly expressed their concern about expanding the laboratories' industrial R&D beyond the existing DOE missions. I quote from their work: The current industrial partnership activities of the laboratories are unfocused and invariably lead to add-ons. As in this case, an add-on. The Galvin Commission made three specific recommendations. In two of those cases this kind of a project is in direct contradiction to the recommendations. Their recommendations that are contradicted are that government-funded technology transfer industrial competitiveness activities should be focused on industries and areas of technology that contribute directly to the DOE primary missions in national security, energy and environment. The second recommendation, that competitive selection and more rigorous technical and merit review, namely peer review, which has been mentioned on several occasions by external experts, should be applied broadly within the department's cooperative research and development agreement.