John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I very much appreciate that you have provided us with this time to talk about some of these issues, and since we are talking about the earned income tax credit and its effect upon people with moderate income, I wonder how many people really understand how extensive this is. There are something like 12 million people who end up losing that earned income tax credit. Remember earned income tax credit means that, if you have been working and you are paying taxes out of your paycheck, that you were eligible, if your income was very low--if even with working, one or both persons in the family working, your income was still under the $25,000 or so level, you were eligible for some money back, and it is 12 million American families that are in that category. Now from my State, which is a little smaller than each of yours--in fact, a little smaller than all of us standing here--from my State it is, oh, about 400,000 or so families in the State. My guess is that for the gentleman from Ohio it must be close to a million families in-- well, it would not be quite that many.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in last month's continuing resolution agreement, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and President Clinton committed to a balanced budget that ``must provide adequate funding for veterans,'' but Newt Gingrich's current budget plan hurts veterans. That budget cuts health coverage for veterans, it increases costs for prescription drugs for veterans, it hikes costs for veterans' home loans, and it even cuts some pension benefits for veterans. That budget provides $400 million less than what the veterans' health system needs in fiscal year 1996 to provide current quality health care for veterans. Many of Newt Gingrich's own Republican Members objected to this cut until they had their arms twisted by their leaders. Newt Gingrich should live up to his commitment to a balanced budget that gives veterans what they deserve.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in the continuing budget resolution agreement last month, the Republicans and the President committed to a balanced budget that ``must protect the environment,'' but the current Republican budget plan declares war on the environment. It gives away millions to mining companies in the West. It allows massive timber harvesting in the Tongass National Forest and oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Republican plan guts the EPA's budget for enforcing our clean air and clean water laws and for continuing the cleanup of the Housatonic and Connecticut Rivers in my district, all this to give billions in tax breaks to the already wealthy who do not need them. Not a very good trade, Mr. Speaker. Republicans should live up to their agreement and support a balanced budget that protects the environment, rather than sacrificing it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, Americans have seen in CNN detail the concentration camps and the ethnic cleansing and the systematic slaughter of civilians. Who dares forget the mass slaughter of the males in Srebrenica, thousands of men and boys, when that U.S.- designated safe haven, swelled with refugees, was overrun by the Bosnia Serbs, all because the United Nations proved that it could not and would not stop the genocide. Events have shown that the United States is the only power in the world that can stop such crimes. To secure peace, President Clinton has courageously put himself and America's conscience on the line. America led NATO to stop the war, America led the negotiations for peace, and now America must lead NATO in securing the peace so that wounds can heal and justice can evolve. The United States wields such power morally as well as militarily because of how the world perceives us. As has been eloquently written, America is seen as a ``good and tolerant country; a country that leaves people alone, but does not leave evil alone; a country that will find the courage to act where the courage to act is wanting. We are not the world's policeman, but we are not the world's innocent bystander. To do nothing about Bosnia would steal the meaning from the American victory in the cold war.'' In the year that NATO will be in Bosnia, boundaries will be secured, warring factions separated, and 2 million refugees who want to return to their homes will be secured in their return. Those are NATO's purposes. But the purpose of America's presence and participation with NATO is stability in Europe and peace in Bosnia to give Bosnia the opportunity to become again the multireligious, multicultural society that this tragic manufactured war was designed to destroy. Mr. Speaker, there was a wonderful photo in the New York Times this past Sunday. Mr. Speaker, 3,000 Sarajevans, Bosnians of Catholic and Moslem and Orthodox faith, demonstrating in unity to show that after all the suffering and horror of 4 years, the idea of a multiethnic, multireligious Bosnia has survived. The ultimate test for peace is whether Bosnians will use wisely the opportunity provided by the 1-year NATO mission to grow those 3,000 to 30,000 to 300,000 and beyond in rebuilding Bosnia. This is our time to act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Buyer resolution and to pass the Hamilton resolution.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in the budget continuing resolution the Government is operating under, Republicans committed to a balanced budget that must provide adequate funding for Medicaid. But by slashing Medicaid by $163 billion, their budget plan threatens the health security of disabled and elderly Americans and the income security of the families who love them. The Republican plan completely eliminates the guarantee of long-term care. It allows the States to go after every penny--and every piece of property--held by families of those who need nursing care. And all to give $245 billion in tax breaks mostly to the very wealthiest among us. Republicans should live up to their agreement and support a budget that protects Medicaid, rather than obliterating it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in last month's continuing resolution agreement, Republicans and the President committed to a balanced budget which would include, and I quote, ``tax policies to help working families.'' However, by cutting the earned-income tax credit, the Republicans' balanced budget plan raises taxes on over 12 million working families whose income is less than $30,000 per year. Now, the Republicans like to give the impression that all earned- income tax credit recipients are so poor that they do not pay income taxes, and therefore, do not deserve a tax credit, however much such people in such low-income working categories need it. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The Republican budget actually targets tax increases to millions of working families who do pay income taxes, taxes that are withheld from their hard-earned paychecks. Now, the Republicans also claim that their $500-per-child tax credit makes up for their cuts to the earned-income tax credit, but that is not true either. Even with the child credit, the Republican plan leaves over 7 million families poorer. Now, that is not a tax policy that helps families; it is one that drives them toward poverty. It does not protect children; it threatens them. And it does not live up to the continuing resolution agreement; it violates that agreement. The Republicans even had to violate their own House rule requiring a three-fifths majority to raise taxes in order to pass these tax increases. It was all to give $245 billion in tax breaks that go mostly to the fewer than 10 percent of the wealthiest Americans who make more than $100,000 a year, tax breaks so large that they actually cause the deficit to go up in the first 2 years of the Republican plan, and then, after 7 years, the tax break explodes as far as the eye can see. So do not believe the Republican plan when they say they have to raise taxes on working families to balance the budget. It is unnecessary. It is unfair. It is wrong, so we should not do it. The Republicans should live up to their agreement to support a budget that does not rob struggling families to pay the rich.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the public is finally becoming aware of what the antienvironmental extremists in this Congress are doing. Under the Republican leadership, clean water, clean air, and public health are being sold to the highest campaign contributor. While we are struggling to cut the budget, Republicans want to subsidize logging in the Nation's last rain forest. They want to continue the 1872 mining law that gives away millions to private companies, and to allow oil drilling on Alaska's true wilderness.' The American people want strong environmental protection. Instead, the Republicans are jeopardizing the rivers we fish, the beaches we swim in, and the very air we breathe for the benefit of special interests. There truly is a contract with the American environment. That contract is becoming a bill of sale.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the reconciliation legislation. Mr. Speaker, the United States has the widest gap in the industrialized world between those who can readily afford housing, education, health care, and retirement security and those who must struggle every day to get by. And the gap is growing faster in the United States than in any of the other G-7 countries. Into this scenario, step congressional Republicans and the President with competing approaches to balance the budget--approaches which have a diametrically opposed set of priorities. Republicans are for B-2 bombers and ballistic missile defense systems we don't need; in total, $33 billion in increased defense spending over what the Pentagon says it needs to defend the nation. Republicans are also for big tax breaks to those earning over $100,000 a year; $245 billion in tax breaks in all. The Republicans can only fit these tax breaks into their budget plan by taking away housing, nutrition, health care, and educational and economic opportunities from the very Americans who are struggling to build a better life for themselves. To begin with, their budget takes over $400 billion in health care away from seniors and poor families by draconian cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, cuts that are not part of any kind of constructive reform of the Health care system which would allow it to accommodate reductions of this magnitude. Other harmful cuts to families come in a variety of critical areas: $30 billion to veterans' benefits, including veterans' health care; nearly $20 billion in child nutrition; $15 billion in Federal workers' pensions; over $10 billion in agriculture support; $10 billion in student loans; $10 billion in winter heat assistance for elders and the poor; $10 billion in vocational and adult education; $3 billion in mass transit assistance; and $3 billion to keep our children's schools safe and drug-free--just to name a few. Republicans also want to scale back the earned income tax credit [EITC] to the working poor by close to $32 billion, pushing low-wage earning families, who shouldn't be paying taxes in the first place, back into poverty, ensuring that they will no longer be able to make it on their own. The President, on the other hand, in outlining his balanced-budget plan, has made it abundantly clear that he stands for a different set of priorities--priorities that lie 180 degrees from where Republicans stand. The President is for student loans, safe schools, school lunches, health care for veterans, job opportunities for young adults, and income and health security for our Nation's elders. We Democrats think these things are more important than giveaways to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, so we would not give big tax cuts, and we would hold down defense spending. We believe in helping low-income, working families gain back some ground on their slipping standards of living. But the Republicans don't care about that. They're not the least bit concerned about the growing gap between the haves and the have nots. They would make the gap much worse, taking us in the opposite direction from where we should be going. Thus, for its terribly misplaced priorities, I oppose this reconciliation bill. For our future's sake, we should all oppose it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are cutting Medicare by $270 billion. Why such an extreme cut? The Republican Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, tells seniors he wants to save Medicare. The Republican Senate leader says he wants to save Medicare. But what do they say when they are not talking to elderly voters? Last week the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] said, ``We don't get rid of Medicare in round one because we don't think that's politically smart.'' Mr. Dole told a large group from the insurance industry, he is proud of his 1965 vote against the creation of Medicare. The Republicans are not saving Medicare, they are making extreme cuts in Medicare to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. They have made it clear, in their own words, this is only round one. The Republicans intend to kill Medicare.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, pass the gift ban and lobbying reform. In a spectacular display of re-writing history, Speaker Gingrich claimed that ``when the Democrats controlled Congress, every effort at political reform failed.'' But last Congress, the Democratic House passed lobbying and gift ban reform. The bill was killed by two Republican filibusters in the Senate. And, according to Congressional Quarterly, it was Newt Gingrich himself who blocked these reforms in the House. Now that they are in the majority, it seems they like their perks, loopholes, and cushy lobbyist ties too much to give them up. Back in January, Speaker Gingrich called Democratic attempts to ban gifts pathetically partisan. Ten months later he is still stonewalling. Even the Senate has unanimously passed both lobby disclosure and the gift ban--4 months ago! No more excuses. No more delays. Defeat this rule. Pass lobbying disclosure and a gift ban now.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the budget debate today is or really should be about people, and the whole purpose of government should be to help people. So what does the Republican reconciliation bill do to people? First, children get hurt. Three million children will lose their health care coverage through Medicaid, 2 million children will have their school lunches cut, 1 million babies and their mothers lose Healthy Start, a prenatal health care, 700,000 disabled children will be denied SSI benefits, 180,000 preschool children will not get Head Start. That is for starters. Teenagers and students trying to get an education so they can be part of the American dream are hurt, too. Four million high school and college-age Americans will lose summer jobs; 50,000 young people will lose the opportunity to earn money for college through AmeriCorp's national service. Two million students will be denied Pell grants, and about 30 million students will have their college loans cut. Finally, working families get hurt as well. Fourteen million working families will have their taxes raised directly, all of those families having $25,000 a year or less of income, many of them working at minimum wage, many of them trying to raise their children on those kinds of incomes. And a real sleeper, an estimated 13 million workers will have their pensions raided by their employers, money that they paid out of their salaries to provide for their retirement. So why are we then voting on such extreme and vicious legislation? Well, basically because all of those cuts taken together, all of them taken together allow the Republicans to provide more than $100 billion of tax cuts for fewer than 5 percent of Americans, those people making more than $100,000 per year. That is who the Republicans care about. Well, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], said earlier 59 percent of the people who report capital gains have income under $50,000. What he did not bother to say was that that almost two-thirds of all Americans who are in families whose incomes are less than $50,000 per year, that they get less than 10 percent of all the capital gains. That is typical of this bill. That is who the Republicans care about.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, today the Republican Party takes on the onus for dismantling Medicare, the health care guarantee within Social Security. And you can bet the Republican Party has its sights on dismantling Social Security as well. [[Page H 10385]] And to what end? To create a comprehensive health care system which 80 percent of Americans want? No. To serve extremists in the Republican Party. To serve the insurance companies and the American Medical Association. The Republican Party is cutting $270 billion from health care for American retirees to give $245 billion in tax cuts. More than half of the tax cut goes to fat cats already making over $100,000 per year--while 75 percent of the people taking Medicare cuts to pay for that tax cut live on less than $20,000 per year. The Republican Party is taking health care dollars from low- and middle-income retired Americans to give billions to insurance companies and the already wealthy. You can bet Americans will remember next November.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation., Mr. Chairman, today the Republican Party takes on the onus for dismantling Medicare, the health care guarantee within Social Security. And you can bet the Republican Party has its sights on dismantling Social Security as well. And to what end? To create a comprehensive health care system which 80 percent of Americans want? No. To serve extremists in the Republican Party. To serve the insurance companies and the American Medical Association. The Republican Party in cutting $270 billion from health care for American retirees to give $245 billion in tax cuts. More than half of the tax cut goes to fat cats already making over $100,000 per year--while 75 percent of the people taking Medicare cuts to pay for that tax cut live on less than $20,000 per year. The Republican Party is taking health care dollars from low- and middle-income retired Americans to give billions to insurance companies and the already wealthy. You can bet Americans will remember next November.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will consider the Republican bill to dismantle Medicare. We should be not at all surprised, because 93 percent of Republicans voted against Medicare when it was created in 1965. Even the Republican leader in the other branch, the Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, cast one of those no votes. Republicans have waited 30 years for their chance to dismantle Medicare. So who is backing them in this effort? Well, first off, private insurance companies are thrilled because they stand to make billions of dollars. It is insane to turn over billions of Medicare dollars, tax dollars, to insurance companies who will waste about 25 cents of every Medicare dollar on profits and administrative costs, when the current Medicare system only spends about 3 cents of every dollar on administrative costs. That takes senior citizens' health care dollars and gives them to insurance company profits. Who else is with the Republicans? Well, the American Medical Association. By the way, they also opposed Medicare when it was created. But the October 12 headline in the Wall Street Journal tells the whole story there, and I quote, ``House GOP Medicare bill wins over doctors with hidden enticements, promises of profits.'' Republicans are not talking about comprehensive health care reform this year. They are cutting $270 billion out of the Medicare budget to pay for a $245 billion tax cut package. More than half of the tax cuts go to persons who make [[Page H 10297]] over $100,000, hardly people who are needy, while 75 percent of the seniors covered by Medicare live on less than $24,000 a year, and they are going to be the losers. The Republicans are going to rob middle- and low-income seniors of their choice of doctors, access to hospitals, and high quality health care to give tax cuts to a handful of wealthy Americans. It is unconscionable. The Republican bill is bad legislation. The Republicans know it cannot stand up to scrutiny. That is why they are making a mockery of the legislative process. No opportunity for comment from the 37 million affected Americans and they will ram this through the House in just a few short hours of debate. That is why I held Medicare forums in my district so my constituents could be herd. And I did hear from seniors, their family members, hospitals, doctors, nurses, home care providers, and these wonderful people shined a very bright light on why the Republicans need to gag the public in order to ram their bill through. Let me tell you what people have to say. Two working women with mothers in their 80's told me their mothers receive home nursing care covered by Medicare. This care allows their mothers to remain in their homes. Without this care these working women would either have to quit their jobs and become nurses or spend every penny they have to pay for a nursing home. It is not small change, because nursing home care averages about $40,000 a year. Doctors told me that these cuts will force them to make unethical choices every day. Doctors will have the technology to alleviate pain or improve the quality of life but they will not have the money to use it. It is called rationing, and doctors will be forced to do it every day. To their credit, the Massachusetts Medical Society has broken ranks with the AMA and does not support this bill. And the director of elder services in Berkshire County shared the following story with me and the one I want to leave you with. In Ashley Falls, Phil and Agnes are waging a battle with her advanced Parkinson's disease. Both are determined to stay together at home, but her current care needs demand so much of Phil. Her disease prevents any movement. Through the VNA, Agnes' Medicare provided home health care aides once each day and physical therapy twice each week. Elder services provides respite for Phil twice a week. A home health aide cares for Agnes so Phil can shop and run errands and maybe even go to the doctor himself. Medicare does not cover it all. Phil does feeding, toileting, and dressing for Agnes as well as laundry, cooking, and cleaning, but assistance the Medicare-funded aide gives daily makes this huge task doable. There are no children to help. I do not know, but how do the Republicans think this couple is going to manage? The truth is, they are not thinking about the human consequences of this enormous Medicare cut. The truth is they just do not care what happens to Agnes and Phil. And for those reasons, I intend to vote tomorrow against their bill.

Mr. OLVER

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

Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to study the list and give an answer as to whether one or more or several as to which the issue of global warming is not a core function, but these two agencies we have been talking about today, it is a core function.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not privy to the list of the 12 agencies, nor do I know exactly what the missions are of each of them. All we have been talking here about is NOAA, and it is clearly a core function of NOAA, by its very name, it is a core function of NOAA, and in terms of environmental protection and risk analysis to environmental risks, then it seems to me it is pretty clearly a core function of EPA. It is not wrong to have some different agencies working on an issue where the core functions do not completely overlap. I am not going to try to defend each of the other 10. I do not know what the other 10 are. These, it seems to me, are core functions for EPA, by its very name, and to NOAA, by its very name.

Mr. OLVER. It is possible. They agree. In any case, I wonder, it seems to me that this global climate change is very close to the mission of the EPA, to the core mission, which is what the Science Advisory Board of the EPA the previous administration determined. I do not think we should be removing EPA's capacity to work on one of the very functions that it was created to do. We certainly would not ask the FDA to stop researching whether drugs are safe. We certainly would not ask the Department of Agriculture, the USDA, to stop making sure that the food we eat is safe, although actually, I suppose I maybe should not be asking those questions, since it seems that all too many of the people here are quite willing to do exactly those things. However, I would ask that this Congress recognize the need for research into our global environment. Particularly during this record- breaking hurricane season, it would be particularly ironic if the Congress were to turn its back on the research necessary to understand climate change. Mr. Chairman, we have been hearing for some time about the need for good cost-benefit analysis. The problem seems to be the question of analysis. We have to have good data in order to do any kind of analysis at all. Whether Members disagree or agree with the concept of global warming, we ought to be willing to gather the data that are necessary, so we can debate this with an educated viewpoint.

Mr. OLVER. It would seem that that might be the case.

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

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this debate is sometimes a little bit like Alice in Wonderland. It is quite a moving target one has to deal with along the way. Mr. Chairman, I was in support of the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from California [Ms. Lofgren] an amendment that strikes language that precludes EPA from spending money on climate change research and action. I would just, at the beginning, say that it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment attempts to least to correct the wrongheadedness of the authorization bill that is the underlying legislation here. The chairman of the subcommittee claims to be a strong fan of risk assessment, and I notice here in this document which is put out by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Science Advisory Board, dated September 1990, a document specifically related to reducing risk and setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection, 1990 being before the time under the previous administration, that on page 13 under the relatively high-risk environmental problems, specifically the EPA and the Science Advisory Board speak of global climate change as one of the high-risk areas of environmental problems that we really need science done on. It seems to me that at least the Science Advisory Board for EPA has been quite clear on what are the high risks that we ought to be dealing with. I guess I would add that it seems to me that not all scientific issues are clarified by congressional hearings. In fact, I think that quite recently, and I think the one which has already been alluded to and which the Vice President has some unkind words about, I think that one probably mostly further muddied the water and further obfuscated the circumstances. [[Page H 9943]] The chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee surely know that the Nobel Prize in chemistry was just given out in the last couple of days to three researchers doing work in ozone, the ozone later.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the men and women of the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 104th Fighter Group. On October 14, 1995, I will be attending welcome home ceremonies for the 104th Fighter Group at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield, MA. Since August 14, 1995, Mr. Speaker, some 509 members and 12 A-10 aircraft from the 104th Fighter Group have been deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy as part of Operation Deny Flight, the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, during this deployment A-10 aircraft from the 104th Fighter Group flew 351 sorties totalling more than 1,200 hours of flying time as part of a multi-national effort to enforce U.N. no-fly zones over Bosnia and restore peace to that troubled region. More than 200 of those sorties were part of Operation Deliberate Force, NATO's swift and decisive response to the tragic shelling of a Sarajevo marketplace by Serb forces. During the 3 weeks of Operation Deliberate Force, Mr. Speaker, 104th Fighter Group pilots and crews conducted intensive airstrikes against Serb air defense batteries, radar sites and communication facilities. Their skill and bravery in carrying out these dangerous, round-the- clock missions were critical to the restoration of U.N. safe havens throughout Bosnia and contributed significantly to current strides in the peace process. The men and women of the 104th Fighter Group have long distinguished themselves as one of the top A-10 units in both the Air National Guard and the Air Force, and their participation in Bosnia has been no exception. During Operation Deny Fight/Deliberate Force, the 104th maintained an impressive 86 percent mission capability rate and was the Nation's first Air National Guard unit to employ sophisticated night vision equipment in combat. Aircraft from the 104th were also called upon by NATO to participate in the dangerous rescue mission of downed French Mirage jet pilots. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the First Congressional District, I want to express my sincere pride and thanks to the men and women of the 104th Fighter Group for their brave and distinguished contributions to the cause of peace in Bosnia. Welcome home and congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I heard this bill described today as a careful consideration of priorities and elimination of useless Federal programs. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not consider education goals for the year 2000 as useless, nor dropout prevention useless, nor education for homeless children useless, nor a Teacher Corps useless, nor workplace literacy useless, and I deplore the cuts in student financial aid and Head Start for affording 8,000 students and cuts in safe and drug-free schools. And as for priorities, Mr. Chairman, the start-up cost for the B-2 bombers, the 20 new B-2 bombers which are unneeded and were not even asked for by the Pentagon, they would pay for all the costs of all those cuts in all these education programs that we are talking about today. The Republican priorities here are simply wrong. We should kill this turkey. As the gentleman from Wisconsin had said, we should kill this turkey of a bill.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to play directly to the comments made by the minority Member who is in control of the time at the moment. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] just a few minutes ago said that the bill that is before us represents the Republican controlled Committee on Appropriations majority's careful and thoughtful consideration of priorities; and, No. 2, the elimination of spending Federal dollars on useless programs. Mr. Chairman, let us look at one of those programs. The Republican controlled Committee on Appropriations has completely eliminated the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the so-called LIHEAP Program, completely eliminated that. Mr. Chairman, that program serves almost 6 million families around this country. Usually it is thought about as a program that covers people who have problems with the cold from the Rocky Mountains east to the eastern seaboard along the northern tier, but as the gentlewoman from Connecticut just pointed out, emergencies this summer in Chicago where there were more than 400 dead and emergencies over the Southern Plains and in the Southwest [[Page H 8318]] where the heat has been up in the 115 range at various times, those are the kinds of places where even a little bit of money is used on exceptionally hot days like today, and here in Washington for that program. Six million people are covered by this program, mostly half of them are elders, the most vulnerable people to both heat and cold, the most vulnerable people, and those are the people. That is the priority for cutting off a program on the part of the Republican majority here. The question of priorities, this $1 billion that is eliminated from the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, their priority is to put in instead, in a different bill, their priority, one new B-2 bomber that costs the same amount, or one new amphibious transport ship, neither of which was acquired by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the labor title of this legislation really is not about money. It is all about legislating a return to the labor philosophy of the 19th century just as we are entering the 21st century. The amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] corrects some of the worst of those features, but, pending that, the amendment that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has offered removes some of the limitations on the NLRB's actions, but it also allows OSHA to set standards protecting workers from repetitive-motion injuries, and that is clearly going to be one of the largest of the issues of the communication and information revolution that we are going to be having in the 21st century. So, this is an extremely important amendment that we adopt and make certain that we go ahead with the ability to deal with ergonomic standards now and on into the future that is part of the communications information revolution of the 21st century.