Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in favor of this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that some of the remarks that were made a moment ago by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) are just incorrect. It sounded to me as though they could have been written by the Veterans Administration itself. The VA and its apologists for VERA would have us believe that VERA is an equitable allocation of resources. The fact of the matter is it is not anything of the kind. And the impact of VERA is not confined to the Northeast. The impact of VERA is spreading all across the country. We have been the guinea pig for this program. The New York metropolitan area, and the Northeast generally, has been the laboratory from whence this Frankenstein monster has originated. But, Mr. Chairman, it is now sweeping across the country and it is going to impinge upon every single veterans hospital, with the exception of a few in a few States. Florida might not be affected, that is correct. It may not be that Arizona will be affected. There will be two or three States, perhaps, that are not affected. But as I indicated in the my opening remarks, whether veterans are served out of the Boston headquarters or the Pittsburgh headquarters or the Durham, North Carolina, headquarters or Nashville or Chicago or Kansas City or Dallas or Denver or Long Beach or others, they are being impacted and they will be impacted more severely as time goes on. There is nothing equitable about this distribution. It is grossly inequitable. It is horribly unfair. Contrary to what was said a few moments ago from that podium right there, we have in New York seen a 50 percent increase in mortality rates as a result of VERA. Do my colleagues want to visit that upon their veterans in their part of the country? Do they want to see the veterans that are served out of their VA headquarters suffer the same kind of iniquities and inequities that we have seen in the Northeast? I do not think so. I do not think so at all. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is essential. If we do not pass this amendment today, if it does not become part of this bill this year, I promise we will be back here again shortly and the number of people speaking in favor of reforming VERA and against what VERA has done will have increased by multitudes on the floor of this House. Please, let us not have any deaths in my colleagues' regions before that happens. Let us not have veterans in their part of the country suffering the way my veterans have before that happens. I ask my colleagues to take a precautionary move here. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do what is right for the veterans in their areas before this suffering is visited upon them. Support this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. With regard to the report language, the gentleman knows full well that there was an earlier attempt to put that specific same language in the ISTEA bill. This House passed that bill. We were successful in getting this language, this anti-dredging, anti- environment, pro-pollution language out of the ISTEA bill over in the Senate. That having been done, now some people are coming back here putting this anti-environment----

Mr. HINCHEY. Into this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY. Pro-pollution language----

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, just a few moments ago, several of our colleagues engaged in a colloquy with regard to the subject of the Veterans Administration and the implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System. From the course of that colloquy, they drew the attention of the House to the impact of the implementation of this system on the funding for the veterans services, particularly veterans health care services in the State of Maine and elsewhere in New England. I intend at the appropriate time of the consideration of H.R. 4194 to offer an amendment which would prescribe that none of the funds available in the act may be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System. The reason that I will do that is because there is nothing equitable in the administration of this system by the Veterans Administration. In fact, it is having a profound negative effect on the quality of health care in many of our veterans health care institutions across the country, resulting in the deterioration of the health care of veterans and their health and even the loss of life in many instances. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to draw to the attention of the House to the impact of these proposed cuts in veterans health care funding in various sectors of the country which will take place shortly unless we intervene and make it impossible for the Veterans Administration to implement this program. They are as follows: For network number 1, Boston, serving Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the cut there will be $38.8 million. For Albany, serving upstate New York, the cut there will be $12 million. For New York City, serving lower New York, Newark, and New Jersey, the cut there will be $48 million. For Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, serving Pennsylvania, Delaware, and part of West Virginia, the cut there will be $3 million. That is network number 4. For network number 6, headquartered in Durham, serving North Carolina and part of West Virginia and Virginia, the cut there will be $1 million. For network number 9, headquartered in Nashville, serving Tennessee, part of West Virginia, and Kentucky, the cut there will be $12 million. For network number 12, headquartered in Chicago, serving part of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the cut there will be $28 million. For network 15, headquartered in Kansas City, serving Kansas, Missouri, and part of Illinois, the cut there will be $20 million. For network 17, headquartered in Dallas, serving Texas, except for Houston, the cut there will be $10.5 million. For network 19, headquartered in Denver, serving Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana, the cut there will be $13 million. In network 22, Long Beach, serving California, lower California and Nevada, the cut there will be $23 million. Mr. Chairman, I will offer at the appropriate time an amendment to strike this provision from H.R. 4194, which will result from these cuts taking place. I wanted at this moment to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Members of the House the impact of these cuts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the question.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I will not go into detail at this moment about the profound health care affects except to say that many veterans lost their lives as a result of the return of this money. That is substantiated by a report which was done by the Inspector General of the VA itself. So while this Veterans Resource Allocation Program is going forward, it is causing veterans to suffer unjustly and unfairly and unreasonably and is also resulting in the loss of life of veterans in these hospitals.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to respond to the gentleman because he raises a very important point. The gentleman suggests that the Veterans Administration has even required funds to be returned from certain Veterans Administration hospitals. This is absolutely true. In fact, $20 million was returned from veterans hospitals in southeastern New York. At the time that that $20 million was forced to be returned by the Veterans Administration, alleging that it was excess money, enormous profound problems were taking place at the Castle Point Veterans Hospital and the Montrose Veterans Hospital.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the gentlewoman for the question, and I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, make it clear that, at the appropriate moment in the consideration of this legislation, I intend to offer this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. That is my understanding. This is a very serious matter. We believe that, at this particular moment, this is the proper way to address it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am in earnest support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because it would remove dangerous anti-environmental riders from this piece of legislation, as well as other aspects of the bill which would be very dangerous to the environment and very dangerous to public health. There is report language, as has been discussed already, in the bill which directs EPA to take no action which will utilize dredging as a remediation tool until a referenced National Academy of Sciences study has been completed and distributed and analyzed by all interested parties. That is an issue which will bring about very substantial delay in the remediation of many places that contain PCBs and other contaminants. The effect of this would prevent the EPA from dredging the Housatonic River of PCBs and will prevent the EPA from dredging the Hudson River of PCBs. And what will the effect of that be? The language in the report appears to be intended to promote indefinite delay. It does not tell the EPA to halt action until the NAS report is out; it orders delay until ``all interested parties'' have had time to analyze it. The interested parties certainly include the polluters. In the case of PCBs in the Housatonic and the Hudson, that is the General Electric Company. General Electric favors a cheaper answer. GE analyzes every move EPA makes at great length. How much time will this financially interested party require to ``analyze'' this report? A long, long time I am sure. What is at stake here? First, human health. PCBs are a known carcinogen in animals and a probable carcinogen in humans. They are also suspected of being a serious endocrine disrupter and of being responsible for other serious health problems. New Yorkers have been strongly advised to limit their intake of local fish for this reason, and EPA has just announced additional funding to educate people about the dangers of locally caught fish. The contamination damages the fish and other wildlife in and around the river. New Yorkers want the PCBs cleaned up. They do not want our river to be an experiment used by the General Electric Company, or anybody else, for their particular chemistry work. The report language uses an earlier EPA survey of how to deal with contaminated sediments as the basis for the committee's direction. It implies that EPA's own science has concluded that the GE so-called ``natural recovery'' method is the best way. It should be clear that EPA does not agree with this interpretation of the study. EPA points out that there are different kinds of PCBs, different kinds of deposits, different kinds of rivers, and there is no one solution that applies to all. EPA has been studying the Hudson River situation, reassessing it for years, and many of us have been unhappy with the repeated delays because of EPA's own painstakingly slow review. We do not want further delays, and we certainly do not want the public health and the river's health left hanging while all interested parties are given more time to think about it. Just today, new information has come out which reveal that the PCB deposits in the upper river of the Hudson are moving out. Forty percent of those deposits are moving out from where they are located, and 75 percent of those deposits that are moving out are becoming involved in the water column. This information just out today tells us very clearly why all aquatic life in the Hudson River is now infected with PCBs. The PCBs in the Hudson River are ubiquitous. They are affecting every form of aquatic life. And we know how dangerous and damaging PCBs are. They cause cancer in animals. They are a probable carcinogen in humans. They cause abortions and they cause nerve disorders and endocrine disorders in human beings. Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious problem. The delay that is contained in this legislation only prolongs the period where these PCBs will remain in the river, remain in the aquatic life, contaminate the estuary and the river basin itself, and become involved with people's lives and be damaging to public health. That is why the Waxman amendment must be passed, because it deals forthrightly and directly with this problem and would remove this report language from the legislation.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I inadvertently erred this morning when voting to discharge H.R. 1122 from the Judicary Committee. On rollcall No. 321, please let the record show that I meant to vote ``no.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we do agree they are entitled to the easement, and they are entitled to negotiations to proceed expeditiously. And those negotiations are proceeding expeditiously. And, in fact, the Memorandum of Understanding, upon which both the corporation and the Forest Service have entered into, requires that the negotiations be completed by December 11th. But they do not stipulate that the right-of-way should be 250 feet wide, which is 10 times as wide as the normal right-of-way.

Mr. HINCHEY. If the gentleman will yield on that point, it is clear that what is attempting to be done in the legislation is to establish that this right-of-way would be extra negotiated, outside of the negotiations, and be established by fiat. And that the right-of-way would be a very extraordinary one, indeed, in that rather than the customary 25 feet wide, the right-of-way that would be established by fiat would be 250 feet wide.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, but it is true that the Forest Service has not agreed to that. This was simply some negotiations that went back and forth in the Committee on Appropriations, and that is very proper, I understand that, but the conclusion that was arrived at is a very inappropriate one indeed.

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that without this rider, there will be no access to the Chugach. I want to make it perfectly understandable and plain that that is not true. There is a negotiation going on now between the Chugach Corporation and the Forest Service. The memorandum of understanding upon which they have entered into requires an agreement by the 11th of December. What this rider would do is override that process and it would establish this access by fiat, disregarding the laws established by this Congress on numerous occasions. That is precisely what this would do. It has been suggested that this has been an interminable process, beginning back in 1982, and it has been obstructed, it has been suggested, by the Forest Service on more than one occasion. Again let me say that is not so. What has happened in the process of these negotiations is simply this. The leadership of the corporation has changed hands on several occasions. The direction of the corporation has changed on several occasions. It is only recently that they have come back to the table, wanting to conclude the negotiations, and those negotiations are going forward and they will conclude in an orderly, respectful fashion by the end of this year, given their own head. What this rider does is interrupt that. And it does something else, unfortunately. It is so wrong and so contrary to normal process that it is strongly objected to by the Forest Service and the Department, and it has been recommended to the President that on this basis alone if this bill passes with this rider that the bill be vetoed. That is how objectionable this rider is. The sad part about it is it is so totally unnecessary. This is an exercise of imprudence at best. If it were not to happen, the access would be granted, the road could be built, and everything that the Chugach Corporation wants in this regard would be acceded to. But since it is being done in this particular way, in the context of this rider, it places the whole process in jeopardy. I hope that that is clearly understood. The likelihood that this process will conclude amicably and favorably is jeopardized by the presence of this rider. If the rider is removed, the likelihood that the process will conclude amicably and in due course and expeditiously is guaranteed. I hope that all those who respect the law, respect this Congress and what it has done over the years, respect lawful process, and also wish the best end of this process for the Chugach Corporation will join me in opposition to this rider.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman must know that the rider says, ``Without regard to any provision of law,'' and so it overrides the entire process. This document represents the agreement that is about to be signed within the next couple of months by everyone involved. This is the process that has been engaged in. What happens is that this rider overrides this whole process and throws out the law.

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.