John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say that they are for tax relief to help working Americans, but which Americans are they willing to help? The Republicans' tax plan gives two-thirds of their tax breaks to the top 20 percent of earners and absolutely nothing to the lowest 20 percent of American earners. The Republicans would help the rich get richer and leave crumbs to the working families who are struggling the hardest. The Republicans say that low-income working families do not deserve a tax break because they do not pay much in taxes. But in fact low-income working families pay more of their income in taxes than any other group. These working families pay payroll taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and gas taxes. They pay property taxes on their homes, and in some States, sales tax even on the food for their tables. They want their kids to have a brighter future too. So let us give them a tax break too.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, life in America is always changing these days, but one thing that Americans know never changes. That is, when Republicans say cut taxes for the middle class, they really mean cut taxes for the wealthy. Of course, they want us to believe that their tax cut is fair and that it is for the middle class, but their plan says otherwise. The fact of their plan is that one-third of all the tax cut goes to the top 5 percent of the American people. Two-thirds of their tax cut goes to the top 20 percent. By contrast, in the President's plan two- thirds of the tax cut goes to the middle class, of the 60 percent of Americans whose income lies between $15,000 and $75,000 a year. Under the Republican plan, the rich become very much richer. Under their plan, the crumbs from the plate go to the middle class, that broad middle class of 60 percent, and the poor lose their shirts. That is not fair. In fact, it is even class warfare.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I rise to support this bill, but particularly to commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his very effective leadership, and then also to commend both Chairman Packard and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hefner, the ranking member, for their very bipartisan working relationship which was indeed, as the previous speaker said, a joy to work with. The fiscal 1998 MILCON appropriations bill continues to focus on the quality of life for servicemen and women. Improving quality of life for those who serve in the Armed Forces and for their families is critical if we are going to retain our best personnel beyond their minimum service requirements. We are spending billions on new weapons, and we ought to spend enough to ensure that the servicemen and women who operate those sophisticated weapons are not left in substandard and in some cases deplorable living conditions. To that end, this bill provides funding, in some cases above the Pentagon's request, for new child development centers; new hospital and medical facilities, including treatment centers and medical research facilities; and for cleanup at military bases where contamination sites that are in violation of either Federal or State environmental protection laws do exist. The report which accompanies this bill contains initiatives that should be supported by all Members. These initiatives are aimed at saving costs and bringing common sense to construction planning by the service branches. There are instructions in the report for each military department to develop a unified design guidance program to stop wasteful, duplicative spending on the engineering and design of like projects, including duplicative spending on computer programs used in the engineering, design, and construction of standard military facilities. A second cost-saving measure in the subcommittee's report is the forwarding of Bold Venture, the Pentagon's program to move military entrance processing stations from private, commercial buildings to military installations in order to reduce office rent expenditures and the cost associated with housing recruits in hotels rather than in barracks. I thank the chairman and ranking member for including this language in the subcommittee's report, and I look forward to reviewing the Defense Logistics Agency's report on the budgeting timetable for Bold Venture, which is due to the Appropriations Committee no later than January 1998. But perhaps the best feature of this package is the specific instruction included by the chairman to the Army, the Army National Guard, and the National Guard Bureau on the need for a concerted system of planning and prioritizing the hundreds and hundreds of unbudgeted Army National Guard construction projects. The subcommittee report before the House today points out that the Army Guard has no comprehensive approach whatsoever to armory construction--as well as no understandable, consistent method for prioritizing competing armory and readiness center construction projects. I commend the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the chairman, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] in taking steps to improve this extremely poor budgeting process, both for the next fiscal year and for the long run. For those reasons and more, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the fiscal 1998 military construction bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating alternative bills which provide identical tax cuts over 5 years. Now, Americans expect Republicans to be for the wealthy, but they are shocked when they come to realize how much the Republicans have helped the wealthiest Americans. The Republican Taxpayer Relief Act is class warfare--the Republican bill when fully implemented gives the one of every six American families whose earnings are more than $100,000 a year almost two-thirds of the tax cut. The other five out of six families get just over one- third of the tax benefits. By contrast, our Democratic alternative gives over 70 percent of the total tax cuts to those five of six families whose earnings are less than $100,000 a year. The Republican bill actually gives no net tax relief to working families whose incomes are below $27,000 a year. That happens to be the group of Americans who pay the largest percentage of their income in taxes of every kind in this country. By contrast, our Democratic alternative gives those working families the benefits of the child tax credit and education tax credit that the Republicans give only to higher income families. So Republicans give nothing to the 40 million families whose earnings are less than $27,000 per year. They give one-third of their tax cut to the half of American families who earn between $27,000 and $100,000 per year, and they give two-thirds of their tax cuts to the one of six families who earn more than $100,000 per year. Americans are pretty smart. They have learned to expect that Republicans help the wealthiest. Under the Republican bill, the rich get very much richer, middle income America gets the leftovers at the banquet and the poor lose their shirts. That is truly class warfare.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the fat is in the fire. Today this House passed, with an almost unanimous vote on the part of the Republican Members, a bill that is going to cut $115 billion out of Medicare, which is going to end up producing lower-quality health care at higher costs for my mother, for all of the Members of this body for their mothers and grandmothers and grandfathers as well. Tomorrow we are going to end up debating the tax bill, which the Republicans paid for today by the cuts in Medicare, and in the process of passing that bill they refused to protect, to renew, to affirm the promise that had been made to our veterans of a lifetime of health care for people who had served in the military services, and that is particularly important for the 12 million or so, or the remainder of the 12 million American veterans of the Second World War. Well, Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they are the same. As Yogi Berra once said, deja vu all over again. That is what has happened here. Throughout the 104th Congress, the fight in this House of Representatives and in the Senate was over the massive cuts in medical care for senior citizens that were virtually equivalent to the total amount of the tax cuts that were going to be given, and here we are again, cutting Medicare, and that is rather similar, very similar to the amount of dollars that are needed to pay for the tax cut that comes next. Mr. Speaker, the President and the Congress have made a balanced budget agreement, and there are going to be tax cuts as a part of that agreement. There will be tax cuts. But the question that we are going to be deciding tomorrow, who is it that are going to get the tax cuts? The question is, who do Members of the Republican Party care about and defend and fight for, and who do Democrats care about and defend and fight for? Well, the Republican plan for tax cuts and the Democratic alternative tax cut plan show clearly who Republicans and Democrats care about and fight for, and we will see that very clearly tomorrow, and in the days ahead. We will see it again and again in the days ahead. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have called their tax plan good for the middle class, and they say that their plan gives tax breaks to working families who really need it. This chart tells a somewhat different story. The Republican plan, which is the plan that is in blue, gives almost two-thirds, 64 percent, of the tax reduction to one family out of six in America, those families, the 19 million families that already earn more than $100,000 a year. The Republican plan gives that one family out of six 64 percent of the tax reduction. Over here, the other five out of six families get 36 percent of the tax reduction, including that great middle class who have incomes between $25,000 and $100,000 a year, that great middle core of the American people, the middle class in America, and they get 36 percent of the tax cut. The further great irony about this is Member after Member from the Republican Party has stood up tonight and talked about class warfare. Well, there is nothing that shows the class warfare better than to show that graph that shows 64 percent of the tax reduction in their plan going to one family, the wealthiest family out of every six families in the country. That is the class warfare that is involved. And the great irony is here that it goes even beyond that, because if we take this group of five out of six families over there in the blue piece on the left, the part that are going to get 36 percent of the tax reduction divided among them, it turns out that two out of those five, two families out of those five whose income is less than $25,000 a year, they are going to get nothing from the plan. That is the extent of the class warfare which is involved in this legislation which we will take up tomorrow.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in the next few days we are going to learn something about tax fairness here in America. We are going to learn something about the heart and soul of the two major political parties, my party, the Democratic Party, and the other party, the Republican Party. We are going to learn who each of those parties defends and who each of those parties serves and who each of those parties is willing to fight for. Mr. Speaker, almost 2 months ago, the President and the budget leadership from the two major parties reached agreement on a balanced budget by the year 2002, and they agreed on a tax cut, to boot, in that process. Now there is a lot of disagreement as to exactly who is supposed to get that tax cut, but the amount of the tax cut is agreed upon by both parties over a 5-year period and a 10-year period. Let me put that at family level. There are roughly 100 million families in America, and the agreement calls for roughly $100 billion of tax cut over 5 years. That is roughly $1,000 per family. Now, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have different plans for how that tax cut is supposed to be given to the American people, and I want to compare the Republican plan with the Democratic plan by treating 20 families, just 20 families across the income scales, from the lowest income level to the highest income level, where under the agreed plan there is roughly $2,000 to be distributed to 20 families. Mr. Speaker, in the Republican plan, the highest income single family among those 20 families, out of the $20,000 that is to be distributed, would get about $8,000 out of that. And if we add the next three families to it, so we have the four highest income families out of the 20 spread across the whole spectrum of American life, they would get almost two-thirds of the tax reduction. Four families out of 20, 20 percent of the families, would get two-thirds of all of the tax reduction. In the Democratic plan those same four families would get $6,000 among those four families, or about 30 percent of the tax reduction. At the other end of the scale, the eight families at the lower end of the income brackets, which represent 40 percent of all Americans, they would get zero out of the Republican tax reduction plan. In the Democratic tax reduction plan, they would get almost 25 percent of the tax reduction.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I had spoken earlier today and got part way through some data that I was trying too give out, so I am going to pick up somewhere close to where I had been at that time because I did not have time to finish what I had been talking about. Let me go back and point out that, in the next few days, we are going to be entering into an extremely important debate; and in those next couple of days, we are going to learn a good deal about tax fairness in America and we are going to learn something about the heart and soul of the two major parties, mine, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, the other party here in this body of Congress. We are going to find out who the two parties are willing to defend, who each of the parties serves and who each of the parties is willing to fight for. The debate is going to be a long and very controversial, very acrimonious one, I would guess, because it has to do with exactly how we reach a balanced budget in this country. I thought it would be instructive to speak about something that had appeared in USA Today, on the front page of USA Today, the weekend edition, where the front page cover story of the weekend edition is entitled, ``So How Much Money Does It Take To Be Rich?'' Basically, it is a story of what it is like, the struggle that families at the upper end of the scale have to go through in order to become wealthy in this country. They use a number of examples. I would just like to mention some things out of this story. One of the things that really struck me as quite remarkable is that in 1997 there are now 3.5 million American families who have assets of $1 million or more. That is 3.5 percent of all families. Only 20 years ago, there were only 350,000 families who, in inflation-adjusted dollars, had that kind of income. In any case, I want to just mention several of the families who were given as examples here. One is a gentleman from California who has $1 million in stocks and bonds, and who lives in a $500,000 house and drives a Lexus and takes several expensive vacations, the paper lists that he takes several $8,000 vacations each year. He comments that it is not yet to the point where he can take a trip to Europe or Canada for a whole summer. ``A real millionaire would be able to do such things.'' And then there is another, a couple from Oregon who have about $2 million in liquid assets, plus $2 million in a 6,000-square-foot city house and a beach front home as well. Each year they take vacations. The gentleman in that family says with another $2 million in assets, he would worry less and travel a bit more and do more charitable work. And then there is a family, as an example, who happen to be in South Carolina, who sold their personnel staffing company last year and now have about $3.5 million in investable assets, plus $3.5 million in nonliquid stock, and they own two homes, one a beach home. They own a Porche, a BMW, and a $120,000 sailboat. The man in this family says that they do not consider themselves rich. They are just not there yet. He says he probably would reach that magical mark where he could admit that he was rich when he could afford a $5 million jet. And then there is another family where the gentleman here had $7 million worth of stock and bought a $3 million custom built yacht, and then a year later he sold his stock for $35 million and bought a $2.5 million personal jet. That is an indication of the people who are in that upper 3.5 percent, those people who have million-dollar incomes. I use that as an indication merely to highlight the fact that the Republicans and the Democrats have very different ways that they would give their tax reduction. The two parties have agreed that we should balance the budget by 2002. The two parties have agreed what the total amount of tax reduction ought to be. What is now the question is how we would distribute those tax breaks. The fact of the matter is that if we break it down to six families, with one of those families being a family that has over $100,000 a year in income, and that includes all of the examples that I gave, out of those six families, the Republican plan would give one family two- thirds of all the tax reduction. Those other five families, two of those families have incomes of less than $25,000 a year. Under the Republican tax plan, they would get exactly zero out of the tax reduction program. The remaining three families, with incomes lying between $25,000 and $100,000, the great middle class in this country; and, by the way, a lot of us believe that we are middle class if we have lower income than $25,000, and some believe they are in the middle class if they have income above $100,000. But that half of the total population between $25,000 of income and $100,000 of income would get one-third of the total tax cut. That is what the argument is about. Because on the part of the Democratic proposal as opposed to the Republican proposal, the one family which in the Republican plan gets two-thirds of all the tax cut, all those families which have over $100,000 of income a year and include the hundreds of thousands of millionaires in this country, the 3.5 million millionaires, that one family under the Democratic plan would get 25 percent of the tax reduction. They would get $1,500 on average per year. The two families at the lower end of the scale, with income less than $25,000 a year, and they pay all kinds of taxes, they pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and excise taxes and gasoline taxes and all sorts of things, they would get, those two, one-third of the American population with incomes under $25,000 a year, they would get about 20 percent of the tax breaks that come from the Democratic plan. And the three, the great middle class between $25,000 an $100,000 of income per year, under the Democratic plan that group of half of the American population, that group would receive 55 percent of the tax reduction that would come from the agreed-on tax plan that both parties have agreed, but we are just arguing about who should get it. I have to ask America, because this question is going to be asked again and again and again over the next few days, whether we should give two-thirds of all the tax breaks to the families with more than $100,000 of income per year; or whether we should give the middle, the great middle class, between $25,000 and $100,000 a year, 55 percent of the tax breaks that are to be given under the plans that are going to be debated over the next few days; and whether in fact it is fair for us to give no tax break at all for the one-third of all Americans who have incomes below $25,000 a year but represent working families with kids, young families, families and households that are headed by women, whether it is fair to give them nothing as the Republican plan would do, or whether it is fair to give them some of the tax break as well.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. To follow up on that, Mr. Speaker, to go back to where I was, in fact, polling, which is something that is continually being done, the people at the top do not express with any strength that they need great tax cuts. They are already making very large incomes, doing extremely well in the economy that we have been seeing. The people who are telling us that they really need tax cuts are in fact those folks with under $35,000 a year of income, under the middle income in this country, and particularly young families trying to start out, and particularly those who are working mothers, who are the heads of their own households. Those are the families that need the tax reduction, the tax break, the tax cuts that we have. Our plan, the Democratic plan, among those five out of six families that fall into the 91 million families, our plan gives to those 40 million families that have less than $25,000 or so of income, we give them a substantial tax cut that will help them, exactly the people who need it the most. Really, I had to smile at the leader's comment about this being class warfare. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. It is the Republican plan which is conducting class warfare, and we have merely, as the gentleman said, commented on it. We have made it public, in essence.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in favor of the Dellums-Kasich-Foley amendment. Mr. Chairman, restarting the B-2 bomber production line cannot be justified on any known grounds. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that more B-2's are unnecessary. Just last week, Defense Secretary William Cohen told us he opposes this astronomically expensive project. Further, the price tag for the B-2's in this bill is misleading. The $331 million is just a small downpayment for nine additional bombers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of this project will explode to $27 billion in inflation adjusted dollars over 20 years--for each of those nine bombers, $1.5 billion for procurement and $1.5 billion for maintenance. We are told the CBO is a highly reliable unbiased body or is that only when CBO tells us what we want to hear? For each additional B-2, we could fund prenatal care for 1\1/2\ million women or immunizations for nearly 10 million babies, or Head Start for 330,000 students or health care for \1/2\ million children or summer jobs for more than a million teenagers. If we cannot afford to give the proposed child tax credit to millions of poor working families who need help buying food, housing, and medical care, then how can we afford to waste $27 billion on B-2 bombers. I urge my colleagues to save our limited resources for something of value--something we need.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] profoundly for her leadership on this issue, which is so vital to the needs of American servicewomen. Mr. Chairman, denying our military servicewomen their constitutional right to seek safe medical treatment, whether overseas or at home, is wrong. The Harman amendment is not about supporting or paying for abortion. The Government will not put down one single penny to pay for these medical services. This amendment is about restoring access to health care to women in the military while they are away from home. Restricting access to medical treatment while in a foreign land threatens the very lives of our American servicewomen. Women that are denied health care which can be effectively and safely provided at our military bases will either seek unsafe treatment or will be forced to leave their service duties. Both scenarios undermine our military services. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure to restore safe and legal abortion to the women who dedicate their lives to serving our country.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ben Surprise, a man who has faithfully and dutifully served his fellow citizens of Westfield, MA for the past 37 years as a member of the Police Department. Beginning as a reserve officer in October, 1960, Ben officially retired as chief on May 31, 1997. During that period he moved from reserve officer, to patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant, and captain. His record is unblemished. But Ben's service to others was not limited to the range of his cruiser. In 1950 he became a member of the U.S. Air Force and in 1957 joined the Air National Guard being stationed in France during the Berlin crisis. In 1983 he was named NCO of the year, and in 1989 he retired after 39 years. Among his many citations as a police officer he includes a certificate of appreciation from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Chief Surprise has been married for 37 years and is the proud father of six children, and grandfather of three. I am happy today to bring to my colleagues and the Nation recognition of Chief Surprise's life-long service to his community and his country. He has earned an honorable and long retirement.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, balancing the scales of justice is often a very difficult task. The work of a judge is demanding, complex, and difficult, and it takes a very rare breed to handle the job successfully. I am honored to have such a judge within the First Congressional District of Massachusetts. During his 23 years on the bench, Probate Court Judge Rudolph A. Sacco has admirably served the citizens of western Massachusetts. A Boston College and Suffolk Law School graduate, Judge Sacco has never forgotten where he comes from. As an alumnus of Pittsfield High School, Judge Sacco returned to Berkshire County with his degrees, prepared to give back to the community. After some years in private practice, Judge Sacco was appointed as a special probate judge in 1973. He flourished in that part-time position, and was named a full judge in 1979. As probate judge, Rudolph Sacco has logged thousands and thousands of miles traveling the beautiful landscape of western Massachusetts. His territory not only covered his home Berkshire County, but Hampshire, Hampden, and Franklin Counties as well. But Judge Sacco has done much more for his community than doling out justice. In 1957, He--along with his wife, the former Katherine Turschmann--founded Camp Karu, a day camp for area children. Judge Sacco is also a proud father and grandfather, and has been an inspiration to his family. I join with the Berkshire, Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin Bar Associations, as well as the Massachusetts Bar Association, in saluting Judge Sacco for his 23 years of dedicated service. I join with the members of the legal community in recognizing his achievements and in hoping that he will continue to offer his talents to western Massachusetts and the court system. Probate Judge Rudolph A. Sacco serves as an inspiration to his community and the up-coming crop of members of the bench. I would like to express my best wishes to Judge Sacco and his family at this special time. His contributions will never be forgotten.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today the President, President Clinton, vetoed a bill which he had said very clearly that he was going to veto. Very clearly he had indicated that that veto was coming because of a series of extraneous riders to an otherwise emergency bill. And so we have a situation that I have really in 30 years of legislative life that I have gone through both in Massachusetts, my home State, and here 6 years in the Congress, I think that I have never seen an emergency bill managed more cavalierly, more carelessly by the legislative body and the majority than this one has been managed this year. It was back in March, the 19th of March, that the President had asked for this legislation totaling about $7.1 billion, part of it to deal with the very serious natural disasters in the Ohio Valley, the flooding in northern California, the Red River Valley, and the Dakotas, and in Minnesota in order to help put back the lives of hundreds of thousands of devastated families, farms and businesses, people whose lives had really been deeply hurt by that and also, by the way, to carry out $1.8 billion that was to provide our peacekeepers in Bosnia, those people, men and women, who wear the American uniform and are doing a dirty and a tough job, but a necessary job, the resources that they need in order to do that. There is no reason whatsoever why this bill should not have been passed and signed by the President, a clean emergency bill to deal with these natural disasters and with our peacekeepers' needs in Bosnia, no reason at all why that should not have been passed by the Congress and signed into law by the time we went home for our Memorial Day long weekend, and the 10 days that we, as Members of Congress, spent in our districts. However, on May 23, we recessed. There was an attempt by the majority to adjourn, but instead, that was denied by a relatively wise majority that day, a majority of the Members, and we instead recessed for those 10 days, leaving those hundreds of thousands of families without having been dealt with fairly for the disasters that they had undergone. Then it took us the whole next week after we came back until June 5, late last week, when we finally passed the emergency legislation, and even then, the majority did not send it to the President. Even then, they held it over the weekend until the beginning of this week, when they knew that they had added provisions to the legislation that the President had said very clearly change the balances of powers that were extraneous to any emergencies that would force a veto, and so early this week he vetoed the legislation. Why did the Republican majority follow this kind of strange procedure in this legislation? Well, they had a major environmental rider in the legislation which was to the conversion of certain claimed rights-of- way, conversion of rights-of-way to paved highways across National Parks and Public Lands and military installations. That legislation, that rider by itself, could never have passed this Congress, could never have passed either branch of the Congress, yet it was put into this bill and it was not even an emergency. Then they had a census rider in there that the President said that he would have to veto which would have removed the procedure for sampling that has been used in each of the last two censuses under a Democratic President, under a Republican President, that procedure for sampling of our population that gives us the most accurate possible census at the lowest possible cost. Now, why was that? Well, it turns out that there seemed to be some belief that it was an advantage, it would be an advantage to the Democratic Party. Well, that is not really the case. It is not at all clear who would be advantaged. The only thing happening here was that by adding that rider, we end up with a higher cost census, a less accurate census, and one that is very difficult to get done at all. So that rider was put on. Then the third and probably the most critical item among the riders was that to impose a distinct power shift in the constitutional powers in dealing with budgets between the Congress and the presidency. For those reasons it was vetoed, and for those reasons the clean bill should be passed by this Congress and sent back to the President so he can sign it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey to restrict international family planning. We should not, we cannot return to the days when the so-called Mexico City policy dictated the flow of America's family planning dollars. That policy had a chilling effect on family planning in developing countries. There is no evidence that Mexico City restrictions reduced abortions in developing countries. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that gag rule increased abortions and decreased the quality of life for many women. The Mexico City policy denied many women access to family planning. Without these services, women lack the help they need to protect themselves from disease and to regulate childbearing. The Mexico City policy restricted women from learning how to reduce unintended pregnancies. And, in the developing world, 40 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Clearly, the Mexico City policy is at odds with itself. We would be wrong to restore it. Nor should we ban aid to the U.N. population fund. The U.N. population fund does not support abortion as a family planning method. It does not fund abortions. And it does not condone coerced abortions in any country. But, the U.N. population fund does provide women in 140 countries with family planning services. These services help women choose the number and spacing of their children. In doing so, the U.N. fund has saved women's and children's lives, and reduced population growth. Population growth affects all of us through its impact on the economy, environment and national security. Population pressures on ecologically fragile areas lead to increased environmental degradation. Unchecked population growth where job opportunity is lacking threatens the political stability of the entire planet. The Smith amendment would undermine years of progress in battling unchecked population growth and the problems it causes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Smith amendment. Oppose a return to the past. And vote in favor of the future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to commend the gentleman from California for this creative blueprint for maintaining American preeminence in science and technology. The Brown budget proves that we can balance the budget and, at the same time, invest in the future. Indeed, what is the use of a balanced budget if we are left to second-rate technology and American science in retreat? The Brown budget enables us to have first-rate technology with first-rate jobs, ensures America will remain preeminent in scientific fields crucial to the economy, and to the public health and our environment. Industries such as computers and software, telecommunications and biotechnology offer high wage jobs that are the result of a strong Federal commitment to research and development. This budget stands for jobs yet to be created, jobs yet to be imagined, and so I urge my colleagues to support the vision of the substitute offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we are considering the rule on H.R. 1469, which is our emergency bill to assist victims of the floods in the upper Midwest. I rise to urge all Members to vote no on the previous question, as the ranking member of the Committee on Rules has urged us to do. I urge that no vote on the previous question because section 601 of this bill makes a major change in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing procurement law, a change which has not been considered by either of the authorizing committees that deal with such changes, neither the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], nor the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, under the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. Clearly those changes in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing law are legislating on an appropriations bill and should not be part of this emergency flood victim relief bill. Section 601 does two things. First, it requires the Treasury Department to give capitalization subsidies to companies that are interested in becoming new suppliers of the American currency. Capitalization subsidies are cash payments for new equipment or a new facility to manufacture paper. They could reach as much as $100 million. Second, 601 changes the legacy of my predecessor, the late Congressman Silvio Conte. The Conte law, adopted in 1989, requires American currency to be manufactured by companies that are no more than 10 percent non-American owned, and 601 would allow the manufacturer to be up to 50 percent foreign-owned. That is not being done because American companies cannot compete. All of these solicitations are open solicitations. In fact, in the solicitation that just went out within this last month, I have a list here that 56 American companies, 56 of them, American companies who have been asked to compete and can compete on producing the American currency paper. The provision is really designed, and carefully designed, to allow the British currency maker, Thomas DeLaRue, to make the American currency. Thomas DeLaRue is a large company. It is more than a $1 billion company. It does not need capitalization subsidies to come from American taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, Thomas DeLaRue, that large British company, the maker of the British currency, has a monopoly on the supply of currency paper to the British Government. The policy of the British Government is that no American company, and not even any other British company, is allowed to bid on the British currency paper contracts. I think that the ultimate irony here of this combination of the provisions in section 601 of this legislation, the ultimate irony is that all of us are going to vote yes on an amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], which is a buy- American amendment. Then we are asked, almost in the next breath, to allow capitalization subsidies that could reach as much as $100 million to go to the British currency maker so that they can make the American currency, albeit within the United States, that being a subsidy that goes to a very large company that is totally closed in its own processes within Britain. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an extremely strange way to balance the budget. I think it is an extremely strange way to protect the integrity of the American dollar and the rest of our currency. I urge a no vote on the previous question so that the matter can be considered and hearings can be held by the committees of jurisdiction at the authorizing level, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House is going to take up H.R. 1469, which in its major part is an emergency appropriation bill to help the flood victims in the western part of the States, particularly North Dakota, deal with a very tragic situation. Within that bill, in title I of that bill, section 601 of that legislation makes a major change in the procurement policy under which our Bureau of Engraving and Printing operates which has never been considered by either the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] nor the Committee on Banking and Financial Services under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach]. Neither of the authorizing committees dealing with this subject has held so much as a single hearing on the issue that is before us and, therefore, it has no place in an appropriations bill and is clearly not an emergency matter related to the victims of national emergencies. Now, the provision involved in section 601 requires that the Treasury Department must give capitalization subsidies to companies that are interested in becoming new suppliers of currency paper to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Capitalization subsidies, Mr. Speaker, are cash payments for new equipment or new facilities in order to manufacture paper. The amount of such cash payments could reach as much as $100 million. The manner in which this change in our law would be imposed, a change, remember, that has never been considered by either of the authorizing committees, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight nor the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the law would apply special provisions of our longstanding procurement laws of this Nation that were designed to induce proposals where there is no willing supplier of a commodity or a product that the Government needs and provide these cash subsidies, these capitalization subsidies, in order to induce such suppliers. Well, there are and have been over the years willing suppliers. There is a willing supplier now and there have been on other occasions other willing suppliers. So we do not have the circumstances of the Government not having a willing supplier, and so the proposal to change the law is before us. Section 601 also makes another change. It changes the Conte rule that had been promoted and established in 1989, under my predecessor in the first district in Massachusetts, which set the foreign ownership that could be involved in the manufacture of the American currency at 10 percent and changes that so that it can be anything up to 50 percent. Now, our American currency is right at the very core of our national security and, actually, our sovereignty. And most Americans, I think, believe that we should be very careful about how we deal with our currency. Well, what is the purpose of a change in the Conte law? Well, it is not as has been suggested, that no American company can vie for the contracts because they have greater than 10 percent of foreign ownership. There is absolutely no evidence that a change in the Conte law is necessary for American paper companies to qualify as Bureau of Engraving and Printing suppliers based on their own percentage of foreign stockholders. There have been no hearings held on that. There has been no evidence taken before either the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight or the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to suggest such a thing and, in fact, the latest RFP to go out from the Treasury Department on this point has said 56 American manufacturing companies have been invited to make bids on the next set of contracts on American currency paper. All of our U.S. currency paper contract solicitations are already open solicitations and anyone can bid. In fact, what the change in the Conte law would do is allow joint ventures with foreign national currency maker paper suppliers to get into the American currency manufacturing business. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to finish the statement that I was doing earlier under his time. As I was saying, under the section 601 of the bill, H.R. 1469, the emergency appropriation bill which we will deal with tomorrow, there is a change in the law proposed and promoted by my predecessor Silvio O. Conte which would allow the American currency to be made by a joint partnership that had up to 50 percent foreign ownership, rather than the original law, as it was, that would allow only 10 percent ownership. The reason for that is that it would allow joint ventures with foreign national currency paper suppliers. The provision in section 601 has been specifically designed to give the currency production for our American currency over to the most likely foreign player, Thomas De La Rue, the British currency maker. De La Rue is more than a billion dollar a year business that has a monopoly on the supply of currency paper to the British Government. By policy of the British Government, no American company nor even another British company is allowed to bid and compete on the British currency paper contracts. A capitalization subsidy to such a new supplier is particularly unfair because it is a foreign manufacturer who has a monopoly in their own market. It is actually unfair for any new supplier where there is already a willing supplier, and it is certainly outside our present procurement law. It is especially unfair when it is being given to a very large company, a goliath of paper companies. These are American taxpayer dollars we are talking about for these capitalization subsidy payments, and it is hardly the way to use our taxpayer dollars when we are trying to balance the budget. In a final irony, we tomorrow will vote on a so-called Buy American amendment which is offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. All of us will vote for that amendment, and then in very short order we will be asked to use American taxpayer dollars to subsidize turning over the manufacture of the American currency to the monopoly in their own market British currency maker. American taxpayers deserve better than to be asked to pay for massive capitalization subsidies for foreign companies to make our currency, and I hope that tomorrow we will not adopt section 601 of H.R. 1469 when the matter comes up before us.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my constituent, Sarah Thomas, for her prize-winning entry in the 1997 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This contest, sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary, is highly competitive, with more than 109,000 entries and only 54 available scholarships. Sarah, a junior at St. Bernard's High School in Fitchburg, MA, distinguished herself from other competitors by composing an exceptionally insightful piece that truly reminds us all how fortunate we are to live in a nation of democracy and freedom. I would like to insert Sarah's inspirational script for the Record. 1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program (By Sarah Thomas) As I look around the room in my history class I see many things that I consider my window to the world unknown. A map shows me where the problems we discuss are happening. A picture above of President Abraham Lincoln above speaks to me of a government ``* * * of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' A book on the desk retells the stories of those who fought many battles and we hear the mournful cries of those who lost and the joyful tales of those who tasted victory. And we learn from them all. As I look around, though, I am saddened by what I see. A pair of gazing eyes stares aimlessly out the window thinking of this afternoon's soccer game and another person half asleep's thinking. ``Why do we need history anyway? This stuff happened years ago.'' I must confess that I have asked myself the same question several times in my life--until this year. I am lucky, for I have met and grown close to three exchange students this year. Much can be learned from them and I have been awakened to how privileged we in America truly are. Next to me sits Lan from Beijing, China. He takes notes furiously as he wants to learn as much as he can about the freedom and justice we have in our country. He desperately wants to expand his knowledge during his short stay here in the United States, for when he returns home he may not get the opportunity to further his education. Lan's government places a percentage on those allowed to college and Lan may be one of the many who will not be able to continue his schooling. In a government where the people do not have a voice over the laws placed over them, personal development and growth may be stunted and full potentials may not be reached. Behind me sits Maria. ``Living in Spain is quite different from living here,'' she once said to me. ``You have so many opportunities that I cannot get at home.'' Unfortunately many of these opportunities are overlooked by those of us lucky enough to live in a country that allows us to enjoy the freedom of new experiences. Maria was surprised at all of the activities girls could participate in. In the schools of her native country, athletics are for the boys and there is not much offered to the girls. United States citizens are fortunate, for under the constitution an eminent theme of equality prevails. The people are also encouraged to voice their opinion if they are unhappy with the actions of government. Elections and voting are just two of the numerous ways an individual can help to make change in our ever- evolving society. In our schools today men and women have equal opportunity and this is thoroughly supported by the laws of our governmental system. Across the room sits Dahlia. When she speaks of her home in Israel, I see a picture with much turmoil. Saddened by the thought of leaving America, Dahlia tells us what she faces when she returns home--a home where she fears the unknown. Because Dahlia will soon be eighteen years old, when she goes home she will be forced to enter the military. All men and women, upon reaching eighteen years of age, must enter the military and give up their plans and aspirations at least for a while. Unfortunately many forms of government do not allow their people to take a stand for what they believe in. Government controls all. But in those forms of ruling * * * who controls the government? In the United States of America, we, the people, have a voice. Through our democratic society, our voice is heard. My worry for Lan, Maria, and Dahlia helps me to have a clearer vision of my ``land of opportunity''--a country that allows me to develop my potential and realize my dreams. In class, a poster over-head is yet another reminder of our unparalleled good fortune. It echoes the words of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ``Since the beginning of our American History we have been engaged in change--in a perpetual peaceful revolution--a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions.'' I believe a society must be able to adapt with the changing world if it is to succeed. Democracy is above and beyond all other forms of government because it allows us to do just that. By allowing its people to make change, our country not only survives, but as a nation of involved people, we thrive. A nation, a people, a voice, we must be heard. Through democracy, we are heard.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the Working Families Flexibility Act is a misnomer, but it certainly clearly defines what the majority thinks about the struggle working families face. H.R. 1 does not help workers balance their work and family obligations. Instead, it lets employers dictate how workers will balance their working family. H.R. 1 allows employers to use comp time to deny workers overtime pay and then gives the employers the ultimate control over the use of the comp time. Employers can force workers to take time off when it is convenient for the company rather than for the workers and their families. H.R. 1, the Republican plan, is masked in profamily and proflexibility rhetoric, but in reality this bill is antiworker and antifamily. It denies access to overtime and thereby reduces the living standards of working families. Families depend on overtime to put food on the table, clothe the kids, and pay the mortgage. For too many Americans overtime is simply the difference between making ends meet and falling behind. Now, there is no dispute. Working Americans want and need and deserve more time with their families. But this bill does not provide it. If we are serious about making the workplace favor working Americans, we should enhance family and medical leave and improve wages. We should expand the health care coverage and make pensions portable. But American workers work overtime because they need the money, and we will earn the support and thanks of working Americans when we show them the money.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to honor the 50th anniversary of Americans for Democratic Action. Fifty years ago, just after the end of the Second World War, Eleanor Roosevelt gathered with some of America's top leaders and thinkers to discuss the state of liberty, equality, and opportunity in America. From that meeting, Americans for Democratic Action--or ADA--was born. Some people may not be aware of ADA. They may not be able to recall the succession of ADA's leaders. But every American has seen the results of dedicated ADA work. In 1948--less than a year after it was founded--ADA was instrumental in including a civil rights plank in the 1948 National Democratic Party platform. At that 1948 convention, then Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey and later a distinguished U.S. Senator and Vice President--an ADA founder and vice chairman--called for ``the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of States' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.'' While we are still walking toward that bright sunshine of human rights, we are all safe in the knowledge that it was the 1948 Democratic platform--and the work of ADA--that helped put national politics on the path of civil rights achievements. ADA built upon that achievement, demanding action from President Kennedy after dogs and hoses were used on peaceful marchers in Brimingham, AL, in 1963. Soon, Rev. Martin Luther King's march on Washington captured the entire Nation's attention. And, in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. ADA's work has not been limited to civil rights. Americans for Democratic Action has long been the champion of what is fair and what is just. In 1965, ADA was the first major national organization to publicly oppose the Vietnam war. Beholden to no political party, Americans for Democratic action stood up to President Johnson and called for an end to the war. Unfortunately, it took the Nation more than 8 years and thousands of lives to finally put an end to the fighting in Southeast Asia. In 1973, as much of the Nation was still discovering just how serious the Watergate coverup was, ADA was the first national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon--reaching out to restore the bonds of trust between the White House and Main Street America. These are just a small sampling of the specific issues that ADA has been a leading force in. The ADA's sphere of involvement and activism goes even deeper into the everyday lives of modern America. Americans for Democratic Action has been a leading force in areas such as full employment, women's rights, and protecting the rights of workers. ADA has also reached across the seas, fighting for justice throughout the world. Hard-working people have led the fight for arms control and foreign policy decisions rooted in international human rights. And ADA was a leader in opposing apartheid in South Africa. When debate on these issues first began, ADA's positions were initially turned away. But over time, our Nation's leaders--be they Democrat or Republican--have come to recognize that Americans for Democratic Action has been at the forefront of promoting liberty, equality, and opportunity. That is why we are gathered here today. I, for one, wish to applaud Americans for Democratic Action for its tireless work during the last half century. ADA is not the flashiest group--not the first group out there jockeying for political headlines or demanding instantaneous credit. Instead, ADA is out there fighting for American principles. ADA is promoting the very basic American ideas of life, liberty, and equality. And it is reminding those in power that the Constitution created a national Government to act for the common good. Those core beliefs are the foundation of this Nation. And they are the high principles that Americans for Democratic Action was founded on and designed to protect. I congratulate ADA for 50 years of work for this Nation. I look forward to even more productive years as we work toward a century of distinguished service.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the President's recommendation to release the already appropriated international family planning funds. Mr. Chairman, America's family planning program reduces unintended pregnancies in developing countries; 40 percent of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. So, crippling our family planning program clearly leads to more abortions. America's family planning dollars help poor women to protect themselves from deadly disease, to regulate childbearing when they want to do so. So indeed the release of these funds saves the lives of women and children. But this decision is about more, because unchecked global population growth affects all us in many ways. Population pressures cause irreparable environmental degradation in fragile areas, and the growing numbers of the unemployed in developing nations threaten the economic and political stability of the entire globe. So I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for the President's resolution to release the funds on March 1.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time. I rise to support the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill that is before us, Mr. Speaker. The passage of this incremental health insurance bill is long overdue, but it barely scratches the surface of what needs to be improved in this country's health care system. Oh, yes; it does help people who already have insurance through their employers but who are suffering from job lock. Under this bill they are guaranteed coverage through another employer's group plan or through individual coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions, and the bill allows the self-employed to deduct 80 percent of their health insurance premiums, which is up from the current 30 percent in present law. These are important changes. But this bill is only a small first step. We need to go much further. We need to help those who do not already have insurance, the millions of people whose employers do not offer coverage, or the self-employed whose kids go to school sick because their parents cannot afford to take them to the doctor, the people who do not have insurance at all, the 40 plus millions of people who do not have insurance at the present time. We need to help make insurance more affordable for people who are not covered at work and cannot afford to buy insurance on their own, and we should require health plans to offer good benefits and assure quality care. People can still end up with bare-bone policies that drop them and put lifetime limits on their care, and provisions that were in this bill which guaranteed equal treatment for mental health care have been dropped, and that is a tragedy. So this bill is a good first step, but it is not health care reform as we ought to be doing it. We should support this bill and then get on with the job of making health insurance affordable and accessible to every single American.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers American consumers exactly what we know they want. It took American citizens more than two decades to get the Congress to end the slaughter of dolphins and adopt dolphin-safe labeling of tuna. The terrible pictures of herds of dead dolphins in a sea of red are practically gone from memory. It's been great environmental success. Without the Studds amendment the underlying bill moves us backward. No, it doesn't mean that we'll return to the days of mass dolphin slaughter, but it does mean that dolphins will be chased, harassed, and encircled. Perhaps there is no mammal more symbolic of American's love and concern for animals--than the dolphin. As this Congress desperately attempts to recast itself in the wake of its poor environmental record--no vote is easier and will please such a broad spectrum of the American public than the Studds amendment. Recently, this Congress has voted for consumer-friendly right-to-know provisions in several bills. Yet today, this bill aims to confuse the dolphin-safe label and deceive the American public. Americans want to know which tuna has been caught without risks to dolphins. The dolphin-safe label ought to mean what it says. Finally, I believe it's fair to say that no one in recent memory in this body has done so much to protect so many of one individual species than my colleague from Massachusetts. We should honor his 20 years of work and expertise by supporting the Studds amendment. If Studds does not pass--we could be faced with another tuna boycott until the American public can be sure that dolphin-safe labels are telling the truth.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this S.A.F.E. amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].