Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both gentlemen very, very much.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have just been reminded once again by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, that the people who live and work in rural America, who own and work on the farms and ranches of our country, are in deep trouble. That trouble has been visited upon them as a result of acts both natural and man made. First of all, we have seen serious drought sweep across vast sections of the country. Following that, large sections were hit with hurricanes. Hurricane Floyd, for example, did an enormous amount of damage. All this follows upon the devastating impacts of the Freedom to Farm Act which was enacted by this Congress in 1996, which in and of itself has done extraordinary damage to people on the farm and ranchers all across America. Yesterday, I went before the Committee on Rules and asked that we have an amendment made in order which would address an important part of this problem. This Congress has done much to help the farmers of the traditional row crops. We have, in fact, appropriated billions of dollars in the last several years to deal with agricultural disaster affecting these five traditional row crops. However, we have pointedly ignored the producers of specialty crops. And what I mean by specialty crops, of course, are the producers of fruit, apples, pears, orchards of various kinds, as well as vegetable growers, peanut growers, and other specialty crops, which have been hard hit both by these natural and man-made disasters. I ask the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment which would allow $150 million in disaster assistance for the farmers who produce these row crops and whose incomes have been so devastatedly impacted as a result of these natural and man-made disasters. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules saw fit not to make that amendment in order. So I am taking this opportunity to bring this issue before the Members of the House and, particularly, once again, to my dear friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has been gracious enough to allow me to consult with him on this issue and to bring it to his attention. We have had several discussions about it. And he has assured me of his deep concern and interest in this issue. I hope that together we can find a way to provide the relief that is so desperately needed by the agriculture community, particularly the growers of these row crops. I am putting my faith in the chairman of my subcommittee and the other Members of this House, and the people who grow these crops all across our country, in the Northeast and Florida, in the South, and in the far West, also are putting their faith in the chairman of our subcommittee and the Members of this House. They need relief. They need it desperately, and they need it now. This is, in fact, a disaster, and we have a responsibility to come to their aid.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who was here just a few moments ago mischaracterizes the tax portion of the progressive budget. I think that ought to be noted. During the Eisenhower administration, corporations in this country paid about one-third of the taxes that are collected by the Federal Government, under the Republican-run Congress, that number has declined to one-eighth, therefore, all of that tax obligation has been transferred to working Americans. The working Americans that he was complaining about are bearing a higher share of the burden, as a result of the tax policies that are contained within the Republican budget. The progressive budget would create a much fairer system, a system which recognizes that working people ought to get tax relief, and that is what that budget does. Among the other deficiencies in the Republican budget, it fails to recognize the fact that we live in community and community obligations and responsibilities. The progressive budget would help rebuild America by providing a rebuild America infrastructure program which would provide tens of billions of dollars to communities across our country to rebuild schools, highways, bridges, and to fund water supply and sewer treatment facilities, all of which are desperately needed in every community across America. Furthermore, the progressive budget recognizes our responsibility to education. For the first time, it fully funds Head Start. Head Start is recognized as the most effective educational program ever devised. It gives little children an opportunity to get a head start with their education. The progressive budget does many things that are good for our communities. Let us support it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this resolution is an imposter. Its very name, the Oil Price Reduction Act, is a trick and a deception. If we wanted to do something about it and we must, that is, the price of oil, we know what we have to do. But the majority party here has refused to do it. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will allow us to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with price fluctuations. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will establish a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast to deal with the cost of home heating in that part of the country. You have refused to deal with a bill, and bring a bill out on the floor which will reduce the consumption of oil through transportation, particularly through automobiles. You have refused to bring legislation out on the floor which will allow this one to be amended which would allow for conservation and for the development of alternative energy. All of these things are needed. Yet you have refused to do any one of them. Instead, what you have done is dragged this imposter out here to pretend you are doing something when it is clear you are doing nothing.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1996, the People's Republic of China (PRC) conducted two guided missile tests north of Taiwan, in an effort to intimidate the voting populous. Fortunately, the people in Taiwan recognized this act of intimidation by the PRC and overwhelmingly elected Lee Teng-hui as their first freely elected president in China's 5,000-year history. This year, on the eve of Taiwan's second presidential election, the People's Republic of China has once again renewed its militaristic intimidation tactics against Taiwan. On at least two occasions, Beijing leaders had made it abundantly clear that it could invade Taiwan if Taiwan refused to engage in reunification talks. There is widespread concern throughout Taiwan, South Asia, and here in the United States that the PRC will continue its efforts to intimidate Taiwan. These attempts to destabilize Taiwan's healthy policy and economy would eventually lead to the surrender of Taiwan to mainland China. I trust the voters in Taiwan will once again choose one of the three leading candidates as their president on March 18. It is vitally important that Taiwan's security not be compromised in any way. In the meantime, the goal of both governments should be increased dialog and a cooling of inflammatory rhetoric. Fear and instability will not serve the people of either Taiwan or the PRC, and it certainly will not serve the interest of the United States.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my constituent, the distinguished Mr. Bertram Bringhurst. Today, Mr. Bringhurst achieves two major milestones: the celebration of his 100th birthday and the award of France's highest honor, the Chevalier of the National Order of the Legion of Honor. Mr. Bringhurst was among the many bright, energetic young men who answered our nation's call to arms during World War One. At the tender age of 17 he struggled to survive the fierce battles at Chateau-Thierry and Argonne Forest as well as poison gas attacks. Upon returning from France, Mr. Bringhurst set about living his life, starting and raising a family and being an honorable member of his community. According to his family, he spoke little of his time in France. However, the memories that he did share, the memories of German soldiers who died clutching photos of their children, clearly demonstrate his compassion for all mankind. Today, Mr. Bringhurst will celebrate his 100th birthday at the Castle Point Veterans Hospital in Beacon, New York, surrounded by his family and friends. Mr. Bringhurst will also have a special guest at his birthday party--the French Consul will be on hand to present him with the French Legion of Honor in honor of his service in France in World War One. this is a fitting tribute to a great man. Mr. Speaker, I feel a debt of gratitude to Bertram Bringhurst for the role he has played in our nation's history. As a veteran, I take great pride in being associated with a man of his caliber. As an American, I am proud that Mr. Bringhurst will get the accolades he deserves for his service in France.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting piece of legislation, and I know that the people who have put it together have the best of intentions and really want to see some progress made with this very serious problem. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments that were offered have not been made in order by the rule; however, there are a number of amendments that have been made in order and, if those amendments pass, I think this legislation may actually have some opportunity to be successful. There are some things, however, that we are overlooking as we promote this legislation. Perhaps one of the most salient features here of this bill, one of the most important things that it does, is it brings to the fore the direct connection between income and problems of parenting, particularly problems of fatherhood. This bill directly targets its provisions at those people who are 150 percent below the poverty level. Why does it do that? Because either consciously or unconsciously it recognizes that poor parenting and poverty go hand in hand. So why are we not dealing with the problem of poverty? That is the question that every Member of this House ought to be asking themselves. The problem of poverty is fundamental to dealing with this issue. One of the things we ought to do is bring to the floor here a bill to increase the minimum wage. We have allowed the minimum wage in our country to fall far below that level where it ought to be. If the minimum wage had been allowed to rise at its standard level, its normal level throughout the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s, it would today be about $7.50 an hour. That is much closer to the level where a father can support a family. Bringing out the minimum wage is the most important thing that we could do. The other body passed a minimum wage bill, but extends it over a period of 3 years, drags it out, increases it only by $1, from $5.15 to $6.15 over a period of 3 years, leaving it woefully behind where it ought to be. Let us bring the minimum wage bill out here to the floor, let us pass a real minimum wage bill, let us bring the minimum wage to where it ought to be, $7.00, $7.50, $8.00 an hour. Then we will have fathers who can support their families. Let us pass legislation which will provide for national health insurance, so that all of the children of these fathers will have health insurance, so that they can have their health needs taken care of, and so that fathers can feel proud of being able to take care of their children; bringing them into immunization clinics, making sure they see a doctor and get proper health care. Those are the things we ought to be doing. If we are really serious about improving parenting, if we are really serious about improving the quality of fatherhood and motherhood in our country, let us do something about the minimum wage. Let us bring out a bill that will give us national health insurance. Let us really do something for parents so that they can be strong, competent, capable parents, raising their children in competent and capable ways. That is the real answer to this problem.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), and also my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for their hard work in forging this legislation. The conference report includes my amendment, which was adopted by the House on a voice vote back in May, requiring the CIA to report to Congress on its activities in Chile during the early 1970s. It is time that the Central Intelligence Agency accounted for its role in the military coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and led to his death. The American people need to know how our government supported the rise of Augusto Pinochet, a ruthless dictator who systematically murdered and tortured his enemies. General Pinochet has been under house arrest in London for the past year awaiting trial in Spain for his crimes against humanity. The British courts recently upheld the Spanish judge's petition to extradite him. Last year, the National Security Agency directed the CIA and other government departments and agencies to disclose relevant information regarding Pinochet's military coup and subsequent crimes against humanity. The CIA has not yet complied with this order and has released only a handful of documents to this date. My amendment will ensure that the CIA releases these documents and accounts for its activities during this dark period in Chile's history. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to work with me on this issue, and I thank him very much for that. I also thank our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their strong and effective advocacy on behalf of my amendment. I know full well that our success would not have been possible had it not been for their diligence, attention and good work.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, it occurs to me that the one salutary aspect of this bill is that it may finally provide the momentum to move us to change the way we finance political campaigns. This bill, if nothing else, is a brilliant billboard for campaign finance reform. Seldom before has so much money been spent by so few to the detriment of so many. If we just look at the aspects of privacy alone, we see what is going to happen to people in this country. This bill creates huge conglomerates, enormous financial trusts, and it allows those financial trusts and conglomerates to manipulate information back and forth inside of those conglomerates and outside with unaffiliated entities as well with whom they share marketing agreements. People will be reduced to objects locked in amber, to be examined minutely and manipulated carefully and intricately to deprive them of their financial resources. It is a mass movement of money from one class to another. It is a bad bill.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, one thing about this rule is, it is consistent with the bill. I will have an opportunity to speak against the bill shortly, but the rule itself is totally consistent with the bill. The rule is unfair as the bill is unfair. We have 1 hour to debate the most comprehensive change in financial services legislation in the Nation in the last 65 years. This is one of the most important bills to come before this Congress in decades, and we are going to spend 1 hour this evening debating here on the floor of the House of Representatives. And that 1 hour is divided thusly: two-thirds of that hour go to the people who are for the bill; only one-third of the hour goes to the people who are opposed to it. That is wholly consistent with the objectivity and fairness contained within the bill itself. This is a farce, it is a mistake, it is a day that we will rue. We are constructing here an apparatus that will come back and bite us severely. This country will suffer from it. Untold millions of our citizens will suffer from the contents of this bill. We will look back on the way we debated it, the short shrift we gave to the consideration of all the momentous consequences of this bill and the unfairness with which we allocated the time and we will regret it. We will regret it, the public policy point of view and politically. This is a big, serious mistake.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is censorship. The issue is whether or not the Members of the House of Representatives or the mayor of New York City is going to determine what passes for art, and what people can see and cannot see in the art museums of the city of New York or the United States of America. That is what it is about, clear and simple. Those people who are proponents of censorship, they do not want anyone to label them as would-be censors, so they couch their censorship in language of Federal funding or public funding or taxpayers' money, or words of that ilk. They seek to hide behind that, when really what they are trying to do is determine what people will see and will not see, and they want to make that determination in accordance with their own taste or lack of taste, their own knowledge or lack of knowledge, as the case may be. Yes, the Brooklyn Museum does benefit from some public funds under certain circumstances and at certain times. That is not unusual. Every art museum, every proponent of the arts, every culture throughout the history of civilization on this planet has had public subsidization of some kind. The arts do not flourish without public subsidies of some kind, so we, as an enlightened society, make measures whereby we provide for public subsidies of the arts. But we do not tell museums what they can display. We do not tell authors what they can write. We do not tell sculptors what they can sculpt. We leave that up to the artist, and we leave the success or failure of those works, whether they are written or on canvas or in some plastic medium, we leave the success or failure of those artistic works up to the final arbiters, the general public. Interestingly enough, in this particular case, the general public seems to be saying, we have an interest in seeing what is on display at the Brooklyn Museum. I think the mayor of New York City may have had something to do with that interest in giving this display all the publicity that he has. Whether he did or so intentionally or not, I don't know. Only he knows that. But whether he did so intentionally or not, he has provided this exhibit with more publicity than any art exhibit that the Brooklyn Museum of Art has had in recent memory. As a result of that, thousands of people are lined up in the streets around the Brooklyn Museum wanting to see this exhibit. That tells me that there is a great deal of public interest in this exhibit, and since there is a great deal of public interest, the public ought to determine whether or not it is there for people to see. Let us not think that we here in the Congress or any mayor of any city or anybody of any common council can determine what the public ought to see or ought to read or ought to believe. That is up to them in a democratic society, not up to the Members of this House.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, if the previous speaker has not heard any criticism of Freedom to Farm, he has not been listening. The criticism has been loud and clear from the moment that bill came to the floor. In fact, so much so that over the past several years people in the farm belt are calling it no longer Freedom to Farm but freedom to starve, but that is not the issue before us today. The issue before us right now is the rule governing the agricultural appropriations bill. There are good things in that agricultural appropriations bill, and they were put in there by the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies in this House and the other body. I want to say that I have the greatest respect for the chairman of our Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. I do not think there is a man in this body who is held in greater affection than is the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), but the process was wrested from his hands just as it was wrested from the hands of all of the rest of us all who were members of that conference committee; and the result is disaster and this rule continues that disaster because it does not give us the opportunity to offer to the full body here, all the Members of this House, the opportunity to vote up or down on critical issues. Ought we not open some of these markets? The market in Cuba alone represents $800 million a year for agricultural producers in this country. We are providing $5.5 billion of subsidies, some of it going to people telling them not to grow anything, while we are depriving them of an $800 million-a-year market right offshore. That is true of other markets as well that are closed to us, open to our allies but closed to us only because we adhere to an archaic principle founded in the Cold War that is no longer relevant to anyone anywhere on this planet, except for a narrow group of people in this country who are controlling this process. It is the height of absurdity. Furthermore, we are deprived from having the opportunity to vote up or down on a dairy provision which will save dairy farms in New England, in New York, in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the coastal Atlantic States. We are deprived of that because this is a bad rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my appreciation and respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and the hard work that he has done, the diligent and conscientious work that he has done to try to put an effective bill together. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is an example for all of us in this House. I also thank the staff of the subcommittee for the work that they have done, as well. For those reasons, I wish I could support the bill. But I cannot. I cannot support it for the same reasons which were enunciated just a moment ago by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle. I would focus my remarks in the brief time that I have on the dairy issue alone. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out, the provisions that fail to appear in this bill would have benefited the dairy industry in 40 States across this country. They are suffering so that perhaps two States can benefit, and that is only perhaps. Because the real beneficiaries of this legislation and the failure to act in a responsible way with regard to the agriculture dairy industry in our country, the real beneficiaries are those who seek to consolidate the dairy industry, those who seek to rob consumers of the opportunity to buy fresh, wholesome dairy products from local producers in their own State and the surrounding region. The real beneficiaries are a handful of people who are seeking increasingly to consolidate the dairy industry in the hands of fewer and fewer people so that they can control where dairy is produced, where it is shipped, under what conditions and at what price. Dairy farmers in New York and New England and New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the middle Atlantic States, and elsewhere in this country are suffering because of the failure to put effective dairy provisions in this legislation, and that failure is due entirely to the fact that the bill was wrested from the subcommittee by the leadership of this House which adheres to an ideological imperative which is outdated and always has been wrong, and that is let the free market system run agriculture in this country. It will not work because the free market is run by a handful of people. They control it, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, we must defeat this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, for offering me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the need to protect and preserve this very valuable piece of American heritage. The first point that I think that I would like to make in this context is that the land in discussion with regard to Grand Staircase- Escalante is, of course, public land. It is land that is held in trust by the Federal Government for all of the people of the United States. And as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) pointed out so clearly just a few moments ago, this is land that has been regarded as having great value for archeological reasons, historical reasons, and for the sheer extraordinary beauty of the landscape itself. And that regard dates back to the early days of exploration of the West in our country. And in terms of political action, it dates back to the early days of the Roosevelt administration, that is the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, and even, in fact, to the administration of Teddy Roosevelt, who recognized also the extraordinary importance of this landscape. President Clinton, I think much to his credit and to the great joy and admiration of many people around the country, designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument. He did so not completely out of the blue, as some people would contend, but he did so with very substantial indication and notice. It came as no surprise to me, it came as no surprise to any member of the Interior Committee at that time in the House, and it came as no surprise to a great many Americans who are concerned about these issues. The designation was a welcome one in almost every quarter. And, in fact, that designation has resulted in very substantial and significant economic benefits as well as those benefits that arise from the protection of this federally protected, publicly-owned land held in trust by the Federal Government. Those economic benefits can be seen very dramatically in the communities surrounding the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument. They can be witnessed in the fact that a great many small businesses have now sprung up in that area. These small businesses are providing jobs for people in the community and they are also creating significant amount of wealth for those people who are the owners of these small businesses. That is true entirely for only one reason, the designation of this national monument and the hundreds and thousands of people who have traveled to that part of the country to witness this national monument. And in so doing, of course, they spend their money in the surrounding region, in hotels and motels, and restaurants, and in various other establishments, all of which has been to the benefit of the local economy. So the designation of this national monument was a very wise one. It was the culmination of a tradition of interest by various administrations, both Republican and Democratic, over the course of this century in the United States. It is much to the credit of President Clinton that this designation went forward, and it is much to the benefit not only to the Nation and to every member of our public who values the extraordinary beauty that is so apparent in this part of the country, the most dramatic that can be found anywhere in the West, but also for the preservation of the ecological resources of this region, the archeological resources of this region, and the opportunity that it has provided for significant economic growth in the surrounding communities. So this is a fine act, and any attempt, I think, to subvert the process by which presidents, again both Republican and Democrat, have used over the course of the years since it was first established to recognize the unique value of certain portions of our country and to so designate them then as national monuments, that process should not be subverted. It should be allowed to continue in the same vein that it has for many decades. Notice, of course, is fine, and the amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) proposed in the Committee on Resources, and which was adopted by that committee, is very neat and fitting and suitable. However, any attempt to undermine the intent of that amendment, which was adopted by the majority of the members of that committee, and which I believe would be supported by the majority of the Members of this House, any attempt to subvert that language is wrong, it is out of place, and it ought to be rejected. So I rise here in support of the activities of the gentleman from Minnesota on the Committee on Resources, in support of the President's naming of the Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument, and opposed to any action that might subvert those efforts.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that will provide the Thomas Cole National Historic Site with appropriate federal recognition and assistance. It is appropriate because Thomas Cole continues to be a major figure in our nation's history, and an important influence on many Americans who would not recognize his name. As founder of the Hudson River School of American Painting, Thomas Cole stood at the beginning of a long line of artists who taught Americans to love and appreciate dramatic landscapes. It is hard for us now to imagine a time when places like the Hudson Highlands, the Grand Canyon, and the mountain peaks of the east and west were not treasured, but that was largely the case before Thomas Cole's time. They were regarded as obstacles or places of danger. His paintings showed people they were beautiful; his allegories invested them with meaning. If it were not for Thomas Cole, we might not have our national parks today; we would almost certainly not have our long tradition of landscape art. I hope this legislation will enable more people to learn about Thomas Cole and his followers and the history of how our people came to appreciate the beauty of nature and the landscape. I further hope it will bring more people to the Hudson Valley that Cole loved and painted, and educate them about the role that the Hudson Valley-- through its natural features, its people, and its history--has had in defining our country's vision of itself.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I want to answer the question of my colleague. What we would replace it with is an equitable system, something that is fair and reasonable. The problem is that we have in VERA a system that is inequitable and unfair. It is not that I do not want to recognize the fact that the population of veterans in Florida is growing. Of course we do. And we want all of those veterans to be taken care of. I elicit the sympathy of my colleague for the veterans in New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and Maine and Ohio. I appreciate the sympathy of my colleague for the veterans in Florida. Share that sympathy with other veterans in other parts of the country.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, I mean to infer no criticism of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee who has put this bill together under some very, very difficult circumstances and I think in many ways has done an excellent job, particularly in providing additional funds for veterans. However, there is criticism to be offered in the way that the Veterans Administration is implementing a reallocation of existing resources. It is arguable that the resources are totally inadequate and will continue to be so after the large infusion of funds which are contained in this bill should the bill become law. Nevertheless, VERA, in its allocation of these funds, is doing a grave disservice to certain veterans in certain parts of the country. In the initial phase of the implementation of this reallocation of resources, the veterans who are being injured the most initially are those who reside in the northeastern portion of the country. Those injuries are now spreading to other parts of the country and are being experienced by veterans in the midwest and elsewhere. So we are calling upon the Veterans Administration in this amendment to cease and desist in the reallocation of these resources until such time as it can be adequately discerned what damages are being done and how best to use the resources that are available for veterans health care. The VA is currently operating on the basis of a simple computer model, and that computer model does not adequately take into consideration the needs of veterans, the special circumstances that they may have, the environment in which the health care services are being delivered, and a host of other variables. The consequence of that is that veterans in health care settings in a growing number of areas across the country are not getting the quality of care that they deserve and which the Congress wants them to have and which every American wants them to have. Now it may be that veterans in some parts of the country have not been injured by this reallocation formula yet, but we have experienced a growing number of veterans being injured as a result of this reallocation formula over the last several years. The initial negative impacts began to show up in the New York metropolitan area in 1996. Since then, they have spread through New England and down the East Coast and across Pennsylvania and into the Ohio region in the midwest. So if my colleagues have not yet begun to experience with their veterans the negative impacts of VERA, they need not wait too much longer, because those negative impacts will begin to express themselves almost invariably as a result of this formula, which is a blind formula totally without concern or care for the quality of health care that is being delivered in many parts of the country as a result. So it is no less than prudent for us to intercede, to step in, and to say that this formula should not go further until we have a better and clearer understanding of its full impacts, and that we can develop a formula for allocation which will be in keeping with the needs of veterans and ensure that they get the quality of care that they deserve.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, then President Reagan pushed through the Congress and then signed a tax cut bill that, in the words of then budget director Dick Stockman, gave us budget deficits as far as the eye could see. Those budget deficits in 1993 approached $300 billion a year and a national debt approaching $5 trillion a year. The Clinton budget resolution of 1993 corrected all of that. We are now moving into a situation of budget surpluses, and we have begun to pay down the national debt. Now, because of that, the Republicans are again proposing another tax cut similar to the one in 1981 which would duplicate that process all over again. It is a serious error which we need to ensure does not take place. With this tax cut, if it passes and it were to be signed, there would be no money for education, no money for social security, no money for Medicare. Let us make sure we behave in a responsible way with this Federal budget and ensure the future of our children and the security of our parents and grandparents.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for that. I listened to the gentleman, I am very sympathetic to what the gentleman said about the situation that the story, the anecdote that the gentleman told to us about the situation in Louisiana in his district; I am very sensitive to that, and I appreciate it, and I think that things need to be done about that. We need to protect people from buying property that they intend to build on and then later on they find it is a wetland. We need to take action, at least States particularly ought to take action, against people who sell property alleging that it is buildable, and then later on the purchaser finds out that that is not the case because a wetland is located on it. Mr. Chairman, I am very sensitive to the problem that my colleague outlines, and I think steps can be taken at the State and local level to deal with those kinds of problems. I do not think, however, that we ought to be adopting on appropriation measures anti-environmental riders which will make it more difficult for us to protect small wetlands when those small wetlands are so crucial to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of this republic.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.