John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler amendment and in strong support of targeted economic development. My largely rural district in central and western Massachusetts has endured some major economic shifts, including a significant portion of New England's losses in the paper industries. My communities need new jobs, but they do not always have the resources to begin economic growth in a new direction. That's where the EDA comes in. Economic development seed money--often grants of relatively modest amounts--can make a world of difference to a sluggish local economy. The EDA injects economic life into an area by: Creating industrial parks by funding utilities construction; or providing hard to come by capital for revolving small business loans; or by funding the regional economic planning necessary for small communities to coordinate their job-creating efforts. And the EDA is the only Federal agency that helps implement strategies to adjust to defense downsizing, turning abandoned military bases into hubs for new businesses. My district has benefited greatly from these types of critical investment. The development of Summit Industrial Park in Gardner, MA, and economic dislocation lending to small businesses by the Franklin County Community Development Corporation are two examples of current EDA- funded projects in my area. These projects are partnerships, with the State and local governments contributing their fair share. Termination of the EDA would do little to balance the budget. Three hundred and forty-nine million dollars in this bill is one- fiftieth of 1 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 1997. What terminating the EDA would do is kill a great catalyst for economic renewal, and the best hope many of my constituents have for a future paycheck. I urge a no vote on the Hostettler amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. Mr. Chairman, every day we do indeed pledge allegiance to the flag, which ends ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Every American should have access to our judicial system, and none can have justice without that access. For millions of low-income Americans, the only chance for access to justice is through the Legal Services Corporation. Many Americans already assume and believe that only the rich benefit from our legal system. Mr. Chairman, this cut makes that assumption and that belief a reality. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, along with every Member of this Chamber, I believe that the current welfare system needs to be reformed. Over the course of this debate, which has continued now for more than a year, each and every one of us has voted to end welfare as we know it. Some of us want to move people to work while protecting the well-being of our children. Others want to squeeze as much money as possible from the system even if the action is punitive, unworkable, and threatens children. That is the crucial difference between the Republican bill and the bipartisan bill that we have before us today. Madam Chairman, H.R. 3734, the Republican bill, offers little protection for poor children. H.R. 3734, the Republican bill, prohibits vouchers for children of parents who have reached the time limit on welfare but cannot find jobs. H.R. 3734 slashes food stamps, the ultimate social safety net, assuring that more of our own children, our own poor children, will go hungry in a country whose farmers are so magnificently productive that they can feed half of the world. H.R. 3734 ends the guarantee of child protection and child abuse services, and worst of all, it ends the guarantee of health coverage for millions of poor women and children. We all want to see welfare reformed, Madam Chairman, but we should not jeopardize the health and well-being of children who are really totally without responsibility for the conditions that they are forced to grow up in. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican bill, Madam Chairman.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, this week has been trumpeted as the great Republican reform week. But now, as we begin debate on these so-called reforms, what is the Republican leadership really thrusting on us this week? The only bill the Republican leadership is offering is a so-called campaign finance bill--a measure designed to make out-of-control campaign spending even worse. The Republican bill nearly triples the limits on both individual contributions and PAC contributions. And under the Republican plan, a wealthy family of four would now be able to contribute millions and millions of dollars during a 2-year election cycle. Mr. Speaker, this is not reform. Instead of putting the brakes on this campaign spending train, the Republicans are finding new ways to add fuel to the fire. The Republican leadership once again has ignored the pleas of the people and is focused on helping the fat cats and the special interests that own them. The Republican leadership has once again gone too far. Extremism, not accomplishment, is the name of their game.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer-Lowey amendment. The right to choose is constitutionally protected and has been so protected for over 23 years. Last year, Congress singled out one group of women, those who worked for the Federal Government, and denied them access to a health insurance plan that implements their constitutional right to choose. So what the majority is accomplishing in denying such health insurance coverage is to relegate a particular group of women, women who work for American, to a second-class status. That is discrimination, pure and simple. I urge my colleague to support the amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just ask rhetorically to the chairman of the subcommittee from Illinois, under those circumstances, why did they not make it a general program and put money in for making it a general program? I will yield time for that answer if there is any left when I get finished. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I could find compelling reason to oppose many features of the bill but I want to confine my comments to the field of education. Mr. Chairman, once again this body is jeopardizing our children's future. So far the 104th Congress has cut $1.1 billion from education. This proposal cuts $400 million more. When do we say enough is enough? Eliminating the Goals 2000 education reform, which this bill does, when academically our students lag behind virtually all our industrialized competitors, is foolish. Cutting $25 million from safe and drug free schools, which this bill does, is bad judgment. And cutting funds for reading and math assistance for students who just happen to live in desperately poor school districts, which this bill does, is without compassion as well as violates our national security. Balancing the budget is everybody's goal but slashing education is, in my view, simply wrong. I urge my colleagues to reassess our priorities and put education first, ahead of tax cuts for the already well-off, ahead of unrequested defense spending, ahead of corporate welfare. Thereby, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hostettler amendment. In just 2 years, AmeriCorps has made it possible for thousands of young people to realize the dream of an affordable college education. AmeriCorps participants earn part of their tuition by working in their communities. In my district, AmeriCorps members are protecting the environment in the Berkshires, under the direction of those Berkshire County communities. They are tutoring low-income students in Gardner, and they are working with the police department on community policing and elder abuse protection, the Triad Program, in Holyoke. At a time when college costs are skyrocketing, AmeriCorps presents a good way for students to earn money to pay their tuition while working in their communities. To quote again from the Republican Governor of my State, and I quote, ``The Federal Government shouldn't pass up the opportunity national service represents to help people help themselves.'' I urge a no vote on the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to speak in favor of the amendment offered to restore the funding for the Toxic Release Inventory. I really believe our constituents and our families and our workers have a right to know what toxic releases are being released into the environment. Some 10 years ago, in reflecting upon what the gentleman from California said, we in Massachusetts adopted a program of right- to-know that passed and has been implemented, and since that time there has been a reduction of millions of tons of toxic chemicals which previously had been emitted into the atmosphere and into the streams. In many instances, the companies have been able to find ways that are cheaper and better, both for the environment and for their company operations to function. So I certainly support this amendment, and I am glad that the gentleman from California is going to accept it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Durbin amendment. This amendment is about individual rights and Government of the People. This amendment may provide funding for the EPA, but its really about funding the greatest source of environmental protection we have--an informed citizenry. The right to know provision was passed in my State of Massachusetts by referendum. The people decided they wanted it--and they got it. But today this Congress is saying that we know better. That it might be bad for business. That its better to keep people in the dark. Well, what justice Brandeis said back in 1913 is just as true today: sunlight is the best disinfectant. Right to know simply says that the factory down the street ought to be neighborly. Just like a good neighbor puts up a beware of the dog sign, a good neighboring factory ought to inform its neighbors just what's coming out of the smokestack. Imagine--just yesterday we all agreed that people ought to have the right to know what's in their drinking water, but today this House says they do not have the right to know which chemicals their kids are breathing in their own backyards. The freedom of speech requires the freedom of information. Rather than causing unnecessary alarm about the unknown--let's allow people to make informed assessments. Is it too much to ask for industry to be a good corporate citizen? This bill eliminates industry's personal responsibility. This public disclosure calls for corporations to have some public accountability. This amendment says that corporations have a duty not only to respond to their shareholders--but also to their workers and neighbors. Furthermore, many companys would be the first to admit that such accounting often leads to their discovering trouble spots and focusing their attention on that which might be otherwise ignored. I believe that most corporations want to be able to address community concerns. These funds are for Outreach, Data Quality, and Training in the Community Right to Know Program. Companys want this so that the citizenry can make informed statements without relying on the unknown which can often lead to unwarranted mass hysteria. Often the Right To Know Program has led to corporations voluntarily reducing emissions, often saving money, and exceeding Federal standards. I urge my colleagues to support the public's right to know.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lewis amendment to restore $300 million to community development block grants [CDBG] which would bring this account back up to last year's funding level and the level of President Clinton's request for fiscal year 1997. CDBG funds are very important to the larger communities in my district. My district is mostly rural. The largest city, Pittsfield, has a population under 50,000. CDBG money is critical for my [CDBG] entitlement communities of Fitchburg, Holyoke, Leominster, Pittsfield and Westfield. But Massachusetts has also created a great new system for funding called [CDBG] mini-entitlements. Under this plan, 16 additional communities will be able to count on CDBG funds for 2 years. These communities do not automatically receive annual funds under the Federal block grant. But they have received competitive CDBG money through the State for at least 3 out of the last 5 years. Under this new plan, the communities of Gardner, Greenfield, North Adams and West Springfield, in my district, will receive up to $600,000 each to carry out projects that make or create jobs, improve infrastructure or provide better housing or social services to the community. These projects could be, for example, water and sewer upgrades, handicapped accessibility, development of downtown areas, housing rehabilitation, revolving loan funds for business development, or the creation of child care facilities. These communities hope to have a 2-year CDBG commitment to carry out their improvement plans. But that commitment depends on the Federal level of CDBG funding. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support sound community development.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, and to work with the chairman and the ranking member and the staffs on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, which would increase funding for the weatherization program. This bill's cut in the weatherization program does not seem so bad at first glance. It proposes an 11 percent cut from last year. That is $12 million, from $112 million to $100 million. But we have to go back and look at the program as it was in fiscal year 1995, when it was $215 million. So it already took a 48-percent cut in going from 1995 to 1996. Now you add another $12 million, 11 percent on top of that. That is quite enough. That is much more than a fair share of cuts for a very important program. Low-income households in Massachusetts depend heavily upon weatherization. More than 1,700 families get weatherization in my State, and these are working families. These are low-income working families and low-income elderly families. If the program is funded at $100 million, there are going to be hundreds of homes that cannot be weatherized, and 90 percent of those households have incomes of less than $15,000 a year. Proper weatherization of these homes saves these families an average of $300 per year, and that is real money in the hands and pockets of very needy people. The weatherization is a successful energy conservation program. The money spent pays for itself within 6 or 7 years, and from that time on every penny is pure savings that goes into the pockets of low-income elders and families in those communities. In addition, this program complements the low-income home heating assistance program, the LIHEAP program, where LIHEAP provides energy to low-income households and weatherization conserves energy in those very same households. So I urge my colleagues to support this weatherization and support the Sanders amendment.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] who, as the previous speaker said, he is probably on the way at the very moment. I hope is on the way. In any case, the amendment that we are offering would add $4 million to the Energy Conservation Program in this bill. These funds are to be used in the codes and standards section within the energy conservation component of the bill, and at least $3 million of those dollars are intended to be used in what I think and what I think very many of us believe is a very important effort to update the State codes, to assist the States in the updating of the energy codes among the 50 States. These funds are intended to continue implementing the cooperative cofunded incentive grant program of technical assistance that actively assists the States in the process of updating and implementing their residential and commercial codes. I would point out to the body that none of the programs related to this update of State codes via the cooperative cofunded incentive grants falls under what has been expressed strongly by the committee in the committee report, the concerns of the committee related to the creation of any new standards. There are no new standards in that component at all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skaggs-Ehlers amendment. This amendment is sound environmental policy that saves the Government billions--yes billions--in energy costs in Federal buildings. This amendment says that this Nation will not surrender in our war of independence from Persian Gulf oil. With passage of today's amendment, we will begin to turn back the tankers that carry oil from the Middle East. We will reassert our independence, and reduce the overseas reliance which has hurt our economy, and dragged us into war and conflict. We must end the high price--in lives and dollars--that has been placed on foreign oil. This amendment also means that we might have a few less tankers navigating Prince William Sound, Narraganset Bay, and the Chesapeake. This amendment takes significant steps toward improving and encouraging energy efficiency, and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. This amendment offers a long-term, forward-thinking approach to energy policy. This amendment signals that an energy efficiency strategy will become a larger and more important part of our Nation's energy picture. By improving energy efficiency, families will be able to have more disposable income, save energy, and incorporate environmental protection into their way of life. I urge you to vote to protect the environment and protect the wallets of working families by supporting the Skaggs-Ehlers amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment to restore funding for the Park Service's National Recreation and Preservation Program. This program offers urban families brief refuge from the scenic pollution of urban blight, temporary refuge from the degradation of joblessness, and temporary refuge from the fear of stray bullets. To many of the millions residing in urban centers, Yellowstone is a million miles away--the Grand Canyon--a place they once saw in a film strip in elementary school. But the urban park, the ideal of visionaries like Edward Olmstead, is a place where urban dwellers can find some open space to throw a frisbee, ride a bike, or just feed the pigeons. Some of our urban parks even offer pools for families to get away from their non-air-conditioned apartments and cool off a bit. They're the places where the likes of a future Michael Jordan or Marcus Camby learn to play basketball. Where the Mo Vaughns hit their first home runs. The funding in this amendment provides grants for renovation of urban recreation centers. Many of these facilities are in such poor shape that they endanger kids' safety and health. These grants help repair, reconstruct, and rehabilitate these facilities so that they can remain open to the public. In the past these grants have provided recreation for the disabled, repaired swimming pools, resurfaced tennis and basketball courts, purchased picnic tables, created arts and crafts areas, fitness trails, and bocci courts for seniors. I urge you to support the Miller amendment. If you choose to vote against urban parks, and cite the quest for a balanced budget as your reason, just keep in mind the vote last week when this body gave the Defense Department $11 billion more than requested. If you choose to vote against this amendment, you will certainly know why the swimming pool won't be open this year--and why the water fountain will remain out of order. Support the Miller amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again: another Republican dismantling of Medicare; a little smaller than before, but just as unnecessary, and still a bad policy. Doctors can charge thousands of dollars in bills that Medicare will not cover; hospitals are cutting even more than before, and these cuts, along with the Republicans' Medicaid cuts, will close many rural hospitals in districts all over this country. Seniors are still herded into managed care plans where they cannot choose their own doctor. That means less choice and continually rising premiums. Once again, Republicans demand that seniors pay more and more and get less and less. Once again, seniors will pay for the tax cuts for the well off. This plan was never intended to improve Medicare. As Speaker Gingrich has already said, this plan is intended to see Medicare wither on the vine. It is still a bad deal for America's seniors.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, with about 10 legislative weeks left in the 104th Congress, I think it is a good time to examine the priorities of the new majority. The Republicans have relentlessly attacked education and health care and environmental protection, energy conservation, crime control. The minimum wage remains unlivable, corporate welfare unstoppable. The deficit is going to go up each of the next 2 years under the plan that was adopted last night while taxes are deliberately increased on working families who earn under $25,000 a year. But spending on unrequested and unneeded weapons systems is off the charts: billions of dollars for new missile defense systems to defend against hypothetical or imagined enemies that do not exist, millions for further development of the B-2 bomber, many millions more for other aircraft and hardware the Pentagon says it does not need to defend either our shores or our interests. This defense budget is an utter perverse reading of the peace dividend the end of the cold war was supposed to produce. It makes you wonder who really wants to balance the budget. Makes you wonder who is really willing to make tough choices of shared sacrifice. Both the President's budget and the coalition budget are fair and more human, more honest, more realistic plans to balance the budget in 6 years. The amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado brings defense spending in line with the coalition's budget, almost $7 billion less than the Republican majority's plan. That would leave a full $238 billion for defense and might open the door for protection for working families that the President rightfully demands. If we would do that, if we would pass this amendment, we might get a balanced budget agreement. Is that not really what the Republicans say they want? I urge all of us to take a constructive step to adopt a dose of common sense to put our children's future before special interests, and the next time we have an opportunity to take a commonsense, constructive step on behalf of our children's future, we find it easier. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that has been offered by the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to give me more time, so whatever we are doing we can come up with it. This is all I have of my time.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is little more than a repeat of last year's attack on rational national public policy. Tens of billions of dollars in overspending on defense, raising taxes on working families whose only sin is to make less than $25,000 a year, and a large tax cut on the front end of what is supposed to be a balanced budget glidepath. Think what happened to the Federal budget during the Reagan era. This chart shows the very low, nearly balanced budgets until we get into the 1980's. The 1980's deficits were touched off by an up-front tax cut and promises of future spending cuts, promises which went unkept. The result is $5 trillion of accumulated debt to pass on to our children and to our children's children. When we begin our balanced budget plan with a big tax cut, as this bill does, we invite failure.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Republicans then make extreme cuts in health care, in education, in job training, in environmental protection, in research and development, in public transportation and economic development, and they leave the Nation in the year 2002 with over $6 trillion of debt and no revenue to pay it back because they have cut up front the revenue that would be possibly usable for paying that debt back, and that leaves us with $240 billion at least of interest payments on that debt year, after year, after year, without hope of an end to it. But such extremism really is not necessary to balance the budget. Both the coalition budget and the President's balanced budget prove that. So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this blueprint for failure. Vote no on this rule and on the conference report.

Mr. OLVER. As the gentleman understands, the Senate of the United States was in the hands of the Republican Party, his party. As the gentleman also understands, the bill was also, was also passed in this House by the whole of the gentleman's party, then in the minority, plus a modest number of the Democrats, not with the Democratic leadership.

Mr. OLVER. The President. The President, as part of his plan.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I certainly commend him for his leadership on this issue in all the years that we have served together. Since so many Members here have given their own little personal disclosures, I will give one, too. I was born and brought up on a farm in Pennsylvania. At a particular time in my life, I found some cigarettes in the dairy barn. My father, I believe, had carefully soaked those in horse urine, and I did not find much further temptation in the matter. In any case, so much for the disclosure. Mr. Chairman, the issue today is not a question of the number of dollars, the $15 billion of revenues that are lost by the Federal or State governments in relation to the tobacco industry, although it is easy to show that the health care costs to the public as a whole are at least $100 billion a year, taking the direct and the indirect costs. At least half of that comes directly out of the public treasuries of the same Federal Government and the State government. So it is many times the tax revenues that are gained in the process. Nor is the question the one of political correctness. The question really is that we are using Federal dollars, Federal expenditures to assist in the production of tobacco, which is the product with the greatest threat to the public health. One other previous speaker pointed out that this is a legal product, tobacco is, that every farmer has a legal right to grow as well as they have the right to grow corn and wheat as soybeans. He was right. There is no question he was right. The difference is that none of those, neither corn nor wheat nor soybeans has the effect that tobacco has. Only tobacco ends up representing the greatest threat to the public health in this country. The difference is that we are using Federal dollars to continue that assistance to the tobacco industry to continue this crop which represents the greatest threat to our public health. I really wanted to dwell for a moment on what these funds would be used for it we switched the fund to a legitimate purpose. Within this last decade, all over this country, in at least 1000 communities in this decade alone, communities with fewer than 10,000 people have had public safe drinking water supplies and wastewater disposal facilities and solid waste disposal facilities subsidized with the help of moneys. Most of the money that would be saved from, if we passed this amendment as we should, most of that money would go to helping other small communities to build those public safe drinking water supplies and waste disposal supplies. In my district alone, in my State alone, over $100 million has gone into those. We desperately need, there are hundreds of other communities that are looking for that sort of assistance, both in grants for the poorer communities and in loans at low interest for the less poor communities of small size to be able to build those public facilities for safe drinking water and for wastewater disposal. What I am asking here is that we vote for this amendment and use these moneys for the public health in rural communities all over this country, rather than for the assistance to the production of the product which is so devastating the public health in this country.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his indulgence. I just wanted to respond to comments made on the other side and, in fact, in part to agree with them. The gentleman from New Hampshire points out and agrees that the nature of the territory is quite different. Of the 2 million people living in the Connecticut River watershed area that is the subject of the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, 80 percent of them live in Massachusetts and Connecticut, whereas 80 percent of the land involved in that area is in New Hampshire and Vermont, at least 80 percent of the total land area involved. And in terms of the amount of acreage that has been proposed after 3 years of study with hundreds of meetings, all of them public meetings, all over the Connecticut River basin, less than 20 percent of the very tiny amount of land being proposed as possible refuge sites actually occurs in the States involved, in the States of Vermont and New Hampshire. So the territory is very, very different. In our erea, the support for the original language of the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife Act is extremely strong and extremely deep, and so for that reason it is appropriate, and we believe that it should certainly be possible, that if there is a critical bog, one of those critical areas under consideration or a critical fish habitat area, that we should not be in a position where one owner may negate the purposes of the protection under the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, one owner may completely negate the purposes of the public interest. So in that sense this is an appropriate kind of an amendment, and I might point out that there is a very similar case. And I will let the gentlewoman from Connecticut speak for herself.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as the Member of Congress who has had the honor of following in office one of the greatest Members of this body in this century on his legacy of environmental protection and conservation for the people of the first district of Massachusetts. Out of all of Silvio Conte's great successes and legislative accomplishments, perhaps his legacy of conservation is what he will be remembered for more than anything else. Which is what makes the Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge so fitting for this man who has had such a tremendous impact on the people of the Connecticut River Valley. Sil Conte was a sportsman and a conservationist and he understood the interrelationship between the two. He knew that, like most resources, you can't just continue to draw from it without renewal and continual reinvestment. That's what conservation is all about. Silvio Conte's favorite pastimes included fishing and bird watching. And he knew that as a Member of this body, he was in a position to ensure that future generations would have that opportunity. Sil Conte was wise enough to know that waterfowl and other migratory birds, as well as anadromous fish, know no boundaries or manmade borders. Which is why the bill before us today is a sneak attack on the concepts of conservation. This bill permanently removes the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent activities that negate the purposes of the refuge. After 130, yes, 130, public meetings, the 3 Members sponsoring this legislation, and the 7 from Massachusetts and Connecticut even more affected by it, know perfectly well that the Fish and Wildlife Service is keenly aware of the concerns that this bill aims to address. We also know that the Service cannot proceed effectively to secure the purposes of Public Law 102-212, the Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, without full cooperation from private citizens. The cooperative arrangements the Conte Refuge includes is what makes this refuge a model for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The problem with this bill is that it forever ties the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service in its management in carrying out its responsibilities. This bill mocks the constitutional protections already provided against takings. The Constitution was not meant to be offered a la carte. We can't just pick the sections we like and ignore those we don't care for. The people of the first district are fiercely independent in the proud Yankee tradition. However, they also have a proud tradition in believing in government and the good that it can do. The Connecticut River is today swimmable and boatable because the Federal Government took action under the Clean Water Act back in 1972. When we passed the Silvio Conte fish and wildlife legislation we affirmed the purposes of conserving, protecting, and enhancing important fisheries habitat, important wetlands, and other habitat for a broad variety of plants and wildlife. These species are held in the public trust. the public trust depends on the Federal Government to act as its guardian. I believe that the people in my district depend on the Fish and Wildlife Service to guide the protection of the natural environment. The choice is simple. You can either vote with those who have been swayed by rumor and distrust of the Federal Government. Or you can vote for the environment, for the refuge, and for its inhabitants--the 2 million people but also the black bear, moose, the bald eagle, red fox, bobcat, coyote, beaver, lynx, salmon, shad, striped bass, herons, egrets, piping plover, osprey, and the kingfisher. And so today we're again faced with making choices for the Silvio Conte Refuge. It is a refuge. Let it live out the true meaning of its name. And as for its namesake, let the refuge continue to honor him in the legacy of conservation on which he spent his life's work. As the Member now serving the first district, the district that Silvio Conte served so well for more than 30 years, I ask that you vote against this bill--so that the House can take up this matter in a more appropriate forum outside of the Corrections Day Calendar.