John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. OLVER. Answering that question, in the two other provisions I would be happy to have a rule go into effect, if it were possible. It is not possible either by the previous amendment or by this amendment.

Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman would yield further, I would merely point out again that we can have standards with this amendment in all other areas of energy efficiency if they are not anticompetitive, and if there is a positive cost-benefit ratio. But without this amendment, we can have no standards in any of these areas, including the one that you are concerned about. Either way, you do not have within the next 12 months the standard issued in the fluorescent lamp ballast concern. But if we do not adopt this amendment, then we are not going to have any standards in any area.

Mr. OLVER. I would point out, if the amendment becomes law that had been offered previously, there would be no rulemaking of any kind anywhere across the area of energy standards, not only the ballast issue but all other issues. This amendment preserves the possibility of allowing the national standards in areas other than the ballast issue to go forward under the constraints of nonanticompetitiveness.

Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman would yield further, the fiscal year is only 12 months, but that is a small point.

Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for the question. It is not always possible in the art of drafting legislation to take care of every contingency. As a matter of fact, in the drafting whereby the Attorney General's determination under the law of anticom-petitiveness, that would have in fact precluded the fluorescent light ballast standard from going into effect even without the provision that eliminates the ballasts from this year's considerations for rules. But in fact the gentleman is correct that for this year, because of the controversy, in order to make absolutely certain that the controversy over fluorescent light ballasts was off the table for this year, there would not be, in my understanding, the opportunity for creating another----

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, every senior citizen in this country needs to understand what is going on here. The Republicans are going to cut $270 billion out of Medicare. To make these huge cuts the Republicans will demand more copayments, raise deductibles, and hike premiums. I say to my colleagues, ``You will wake up in the year 2000 and your $46-a-month premium will be at least doubled. Your $100 deductible will be more than double. You will have to pay 20 percent of any home care or rehabilitation care that you need out of your own pocket even if your only income is Social Security.'' Why are the Republicans making these huge cuts? To give $245 billion in tax cuts, yet more than half of these cuts will go to people earning more than $100,000 a year. I say to my colleagues, ``That's easily 10 times your income on Social Security.'' Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``The Republicans think Medicare is the bank of the budget. They'll pull up to the bank window, withdraw your money, and put it right into the pockets of the richest Americans who simply don't care whether you get needed health care or not.''

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is a mild and a bipartisan amendment that I do support. It provides a little bit of protection to Kosova. If you wonder why is it that Kosova needs protection, what is the risk for Kosova? All you need do is remember Bosnia. Remember that Serbia, the last communist dictatorship in Europe, will stop at nothing in pursuit of their goal of a greater Serbia. Remember the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of whole families in Bosnia. Remember the elected Vice President of Bosnia dragged from a U.N. vehicle and summarily shot by the Serbs. Remember U.N. resolutions for safe areas unenforced by the U.N., ignored by the Serbs. As we speak here today, one of those safe areas, Srebrenica, is under attack. Remember the old man recovering in a hospital bed from surgery in Sarajevo who was shot by a Serb sniper. Remember the funeral processions that were bombarded; the school yard full of 10- and 11- year-olds playing soccer, bombarded by the Serbs. Remember the women and children standing in water lines because the water had been cut off to Sarajevo. Remember the bombardments of those water lines. When the U.N. accepts its humiliation in Bosnia at the orchestration of Milosevic, the last communist dictator in Europe, then it will be Kosova's turn. Because the Serbs, under Milosevic in Serbia, will stop at nothing to achieve Greater Serbia. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have before us will not make it easier for Serbia to strangle Kosova, but it is a start by making certain that those sanctions are not lifted too early in the process. So I hope very much that this amendment will be adopted.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference committee report.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. Is it not ironic that this closed rule that we are dealing with today comes on a constitutional amendment that is designed to restrict the free speech rights of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Is it not even more ironic that tomorrow we are going to be dealing with the Republican budget resolution, the final budget resolution which will be on the floor and that budget resolution makes cuts in veterans' medical care and benefits, a resolution that cuts $32 billion out of veterans' programs over the next 7 years. Under that resolution by the year 2002, more than half of the veterans who presently are served by the VA health care system, more than half of them will not be served. Thousands of beds will be closed, rationing of their health care will be imposed, and the prescription drug payments will be increased dramatically. Is it not ironic that those people who have served the flag, served this Nation the most, will see those kinds of cuts, and it is going to be covered up by this particular debate. Mr. Speaker, our flag generates the most intense national pride and reverence. Our flag is in no danger whatsoever of losing that position of pride and reverence. As such, anyone who burns or tramples the flag contemptuously as a part of dissent defeats their very cause. The proposed amendment that we have before us would be the first amendment adopted to the Bill of Rights to restrict free speech. It is not necessary, the flag is not in danger, but the adoption of this amendment endangers every American citizen's free speech rights.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on June 9, 1945, Melvin and Josephine Carlson were married in the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, MA. That is 50 years, for those of you who may not be mathematically inclined. On the occasion of this monumental anniversary, I must take time out to pay tribute to their lives together. Melvin and Joey met at Fort Devens Army Base in Ayer, MA. For Melvin, an illustrious military career was in the works. A World War II combat veteran of Guadalcanal and Bourgainville fighting, he holds Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Combat Infantry Badge honors. He is also authorized to wear the Distinguished Unit badge. Melvin worked for General Electric, and is recently retired from New England Confectionery Co. as director of research and development. Josephine, a graduate of Regis College in Weston, MA, taught elementary students at St. Dominici's School in Brookline, MA. These days, it is reported that she spends some of her time gardening, reading, and making afghans for her grandchildren. Speaking of children, Melvin and Josephine have three: Joseph Eric, Richard Melvin, and Elaine Marie, each of who coincidentally went to Boston College. Melvin and Joey have two grandchildren: Heather Ann and Eric Joseph Carlson. I hear that, in addition to spending as much time as possible with their children and grandchildren, they are very active in their church, and they are loved by many good friends, both old and new. Fifty years is quite an achievement. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing Melvin and Josephine Carlson many more memorable years together. Congratulations and happy anniversary.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I have studied the Republican budget. I have seen the charts and the graphs. I have seen the Republicans cut student loans with one hand to give a huge tax cut to the wealthiest Americans with the other hand. Carissa Guertin of Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts has seen it, too. She says student loan cuts might take her out of college. Carissa writes, and I quote: I am the first in my family to actually go to college. Without student aid, I will be forced to quit college and try to get a job without a degree. This may cause me to add to the growing number of welfare recipients. I might have to become one. I do not see how student aid cuts will help our economy at all in the long run. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Carissa.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Head Start. Head Start is 30 years old today. Over those 30 years, 13 million low-income kids have gotten their head start for success. Parents and staff have worked together to give poor kids a better chance in school. But today is not a happy day for Head Start. On the very day we should be celebrating 30 years of success--funding for Head Start is about to be slashed. The budget resolution we vote on today freezes funds for Head Start for the next 7 years. This translates into a $1.4 billion cut from current funding. Millions of low-income children will be cut off. Why are we denying kids their head start on life? Because the Republicans want to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, whose kids will never be at an educational or economical disadvantage. What an inappropriate birthday present. Happy Birthday, Head Start.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, Republicans are cutting Medicare for 35 million American elder citizens and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and the most privileged Americans. This budget resolution includes, on the one hand, $280 billion in cuts in Medicare for elders, and on the other hand, $340 billion in tax cuts, mostly going to the richest Americans. The cold numbers are almost too large to understand, but I met with Ruth Jackson on Monday. She lives in Holyoke, MA. She is 77 years old. She has diabetes. Her eyesight is too poor to be able to give her own insulin shots. She has arthritis. she moves around poorly, with a walker. She lives in the smallest public housing unit available, and this grandmother is the rock on which two of her grandchildren, a grandson in fifth grade and a granddaughter in fifth grade, depend in their broken family. One of them actually lives with her every day. She lives on Social Security and has nothing else. She has a visiting nurse who comes in and provides her 7 days a week for 15 minutes or half an hour an insulin shot. She has 2 to 4 hours a day of personal care. Mr. Chairman, this Republican resolution increases her Medicare costs by about $4,000, and cuts her home health care. She cannot live independently. She cannot be the stable base for her grandchildren if she is forced into a nursing home. There are millions of Americans 72, 77, 85, mostly surviving women who are like Ruth Jackson, one way or the other. They lose their personal care, housing, home heating, drugs under this resolution. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans promised to give big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the most privileged Americans, so they are keeping a promise that every American working person knows, that the rich are going to get richer under this deal. In fact, we all, deep in our hearts, understand that these Republican policies do in fact make the rich richer. However, are we Americans willing to take hundreds of billions of dollars from our elders on Medicare, our most vulnerable and poorest elder citizens, our unemployed and our very poorest, whose only medical care comes from Medicaid, so that those richest Americans can have a tax cut, and therefore be a great deal richer? I hope not. I hope we will vote against this resolution, and vote for the coalition resolution in its place.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is adopted the Republicans are going to cut $4 billion every year for the next 7 years out of educational aid programs, and that is in addition, all up and down the line of education programs, and that is in addition to one of the biggest blows to education that you could make, and that is the $19 billion that is taken out of these in-school interest subsidies for our college students. Who does that interest-subsidy removal hurt? Here is an example of someone in my district who depends on student aid. Her name is Theresa McGuire, a 34-year-old college student at North Adams State College in western Massachusetts. She is a single parent, the mother of a 7-year- old daughter. She left a low-paying, no-benefits, dead-end job to go back to school only when she knew she would be able to get that kind of financial aid. She now has a 4.0 grade point average. She is two semesters from her bachelor of arts. She is going to go on to graduate school. And she would manage to finish because she is almost finished anyway, but there are millions of others in positions like that who will not start or will find that their school is made considerably more expensive. Mr. Chairman, why in the world would the Republicans focus on the getting-ahead opportunities for people like Theresa McGuire to pass a tax cut?

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest amendment. This is a straightforward amendment which simply replaces what are artificial definitions in H.R. 961, with a reliance on the best available science. We have repeatedly heard, the Republicans have said repeatedly, they want to rely on sound science in reforming our environmental laws and other areas within the Congress. The Speaker himself, Speaker Gingrich himself, has endorsed this principle. Yet here we have a case where the National Academy of Sciences, a nonpartisan, reliable and highly respected body, has assembled a panel, a very broad and diverse panel, which has studied for 2 years the issue of how to identify a wetland, and they have found there is absolutely no scientific justification for the wetlands provisions and the wetlands definitions in this legislation, H.R. 961. So if you support using sound science in regulatory decisions, then you must support the Gilchrest amendment, and anything less would be sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 961. This bill has many, many flaws. It allows industry to discharge more toxics than they do today--forcing cities and towns to be responsible for cleaning up industry's discharges, or allowing those pollutants to flow into our waterways. The bill does nothing to address the problems of non-point source pollution, which is now an even bigger problem than point source pollution. The bill establishes wholesale new categories of waivers and exemptions which will roll back protections for our citizens and set us back in our efforts to clean up our rivers and streams. There is a lot wrong with this bill. However, as a scientist, I want to address in detail one particular set of appalling provisions--those concerning wetlands. We have heard repeatedly since the start of the 104th Congress and in the debate on this very bill over the last two days that Republicans want to rely on sound science in reforming our environmental laws. Speaker Gingrich himself endorsed this principle in describing his vision of what 21st Century America should look like. In fact, Mr. Shuster's Committee report emphasizes the importance of using sound science, and says quite plainly ``The Committee also heard repeatedly of the need to ensure that Clean Water Act standards and requirements are based on sound scientific evidence and principles.'' I agree. In fact, I think wetlands regulation is one area crying out for greater reliance on scientific knowledge. But unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern emerge in this House that sound science is only to be used when it agrees with the preconceived notions of Republicans. The National Academy of Sciences assembled a very broad and diverse panel to examine how we can identify a wetland. The results of two years of study by the best people working in the field--wetlands professionals and academics alike--are now in. The study makes it absolutely clear that there is no scientific justification for the wetlands provisions in H.R. 961. For example, the NAS Committee concluded that the best scientific description of a wetland would use 14 days of water saturation in the root zone. H.R. 961 mandates a definition of 21 days of saturation on the surface. The difference could result in 30 to 50 percent less wetlands across the country. In addition, H.R. 961 restricts protections of wetlands on the basis of the functions they perform. This might be a fine idea--if we had the knowledge to back it up. I strongly support increased cost- effectiveness and prioritization in our environmental protection. However, the NAS study found that we simply do not know enough about wetlands at this point to reliably classify them on the basis of function. The NAS Committee found that any shorthand proximity to developed areas, is wholly inadequate from a scientific point of view. We should classify wetlands, but only based on our scientific knowledge. We know that wetlands perform important functions--in flood prevention, water quality, wildlife habitat and other areas. However, the plain fact is that no one has the scientific knowledge to pick and choose which wetlands to regulate on the basis of function. Each Member of this House faces a straightforward test of whether or not one agrees with the principle of basing our regulatory decisions on sound science. Any suggestion that the content or timing of the NAS report is politically motivated is outrageous and represents a wholesale rejection of the principle that Congress should utilize professional expertise in making difficult scientific decisions. The fact is, Members who make such insinuations are simply disappointed that their ostrich-like efforts to schedule floor consideration of H.R. 961 in advance of the release of this report were unsuccessful. Make no mistake, if you support using sound science in regulatory decisions, you must oppose the provisions of H.R. 961. Anything less is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, the deadly bombing 2 weeks ago in Oklahoma City has had a chilling effect on our Nation. More than 100 Federal employees died. They died because a few used violence to express their hate for the American Government. We are angry. We want justice. Our healing has barely begun. As we mourn with the families of the victims, let us remember that Federal employees are not nameless, faceless bureaucrats. They are people. They help others every day. In my district many Federal employees help us in our everyday lives. I am reminded of Jeffrey Reck who serves as district manager of the Social Security Administration in Fitchburg, MA. Jeff helps people get the benefits they deserve. He gets answers. He gives people the personal help that we all need from our Government. He treats people like people. Jeff's work is a tribute to his fallen colleagues and to Federal employees everywhere. I commend him and so many thousands who serve the public.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to expend more money on any of the other places. We can make cuts in those, those places where it is appropriate to make cuts through the reprioritization of our expenditure programs which I think is what we are really trying to do, to reprioritize how the expenditures in the Department of Energy should go. And the proposals here, even if correctly calculated, and taking out those demonstrations, which all the words aside, if demonstrations which are not of a nature that deal with the validation of the technical feasibility of the theory or process are not authorized in the legislation, then those demonstrations that the HTAP is suggesting ought to be done, which I think ought to be done actually; those are not possible to be done under the provisions of the legislation, and we should be authorizing money that is appropriately based upon the legislation that we are passing. I think we should be eliminating unnecessary spending wherever we can make that elimination.

Mr. OLVER. I would like to end this so the gentleman will have time to take part. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now, the gentleman says that there are demonstrations allowed in the legislation, but I would point out, and I am sure he agrees with this, that the demonstrations allowed in the legislation and authorized by the legislation are limited to the validation of the technical feasibility of theory or process and the demonstrations which are part of HTAP's program of their development of hydrogen as a fuel, the demonstrations are utility demonstrations, transportation demonstration, remote related to the validation of the technical feasibility of theory or process. And so the demonstrations that are included in their budget, in the HTAP-proposed budget are not authorized by the legislation, and we should not be authorizing money for the bill.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I never mind being called correctly for what I am doing, but I must say that the thought-for-word ratio there is very low in the gentleman's comment. I am not antihydrogen. I have said quite plainly in the beginning that I am prohydrogen research. I am even a scientist who has done research on fuel cell technology and hydrogen-based fuel cells. I am for hydrogen research. I am not, as the amendment is very clear, so let us be quite, quite specific about this, when the gentleman says that I am for more nuclear R&D and solar R&D and fusion R&D, and whatever other R&D's he is talking about, my amendment does nothing of the sort. All it does is reduce the amount in this particular authorization for the hydrogen research so that that comes from the essentially peer review panel, the HTAP panel which works on this.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we obviously have some contention here about numbers, but I think I am correct on the Record. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It reduces the authorized levels of spending in H.R. 655 by a total of $36 million over 3 years. On March 1, 1995, the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel released its recommendations for the future of the hydrogen research program. The Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel, or HTAP, is a panel of professionals from industry, universities, and government, specifically convened to provide expert advice to the Department of Energy on the development of hydrogen programs. This panel's work represents essentially peer review of the overall research program. HTAP has adopted as its long-range goal that ``hydrogen join electricity in the 21st century as a primary energy carrier in the Nation's sustainable energy future,'' and HTAP has laid out a 20-year budget plan to achieve that goal. My amendment simply adopts the level of funding proposed in the advisory panel's recommendations for research and development activities. As an aside, I believe we ought to also authorize the demonstration projects as proposed by HTAP, but since the bill does not authorize such demonstration projects, it would make no sense to authorize funds for those demonstration projects. Therefore, my amendment would authorize the hydrogen research program at the levels that have been listed in the amendment. It does not cut hydrogen research funding. In fact, it doubles the authorization for hydrogen research compared with current spending. However, my amendment proposed in the bill, and it is achieved by limiting the funding increase to what the people involved in the program, the industry and outside academics alike, have said they need. So you can vote to save $36 million, and yet you can rest assured there is full funding for the research program as requested by the professional advisory panel, except, of course, for the demonstration projects which are not included in the authorization. As a scientist, I support hydrogen research. In my academic career, I personally have done research on fuel cells, one of the most promising ways to utilize hydrogen as a fuel. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I do not see why anyone thinks we should spend more money than even proponents of the program think is needed. The Members of this House have spent the last 100 days cutting spending. We have cut lunches. We have cut fuel assistance. We have cut safe drinking water moneys for our towns. We are going to spend the next 100 days cutting spending. We will cut the Department of Energy. We may even eliminate the Department of Energy. So I challenge each Member then to figure out why we, on this first day back, are increasing spending on this program by at least 300 percent above the current program, and far above what the professionals in the field think is necessary. Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of the committee, will say that the budget cap in the bill will prevent increases in the hydrogen program from increasing Federal overall spending, but if the spending is unjustified, none of us should be mollified that it is offset by cuts to other programs. Let us restore a measure of reasonableness to this program to adopt the advisory panel's recommendations and save $36 million. I would urge Members to vote yes on the amendment, and I would point out the letter that is being circulated in regard to this expenditure level includes the demonstration projects, the moneys that are listed which are, indeed, numbers above the numbers in the authorization in the legislation that that recommendation from the HTAP includes the demonstration projects which are not authorized and which the chairman has opposed. I would urge the Members vote to reduce this authorization to what is included as authorized in the legislation and to what the HTAP panel has recommended in their 20-year budget for the development of the hydrogen research program.