Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize a distinguished former Member of this chamber, Congressman John G. Dow, who represented the lower Hudson Valley region of New York in the 89th, 90th and 92nd Congresses. Congressman Dow passed away on March 11, just two months shy of his ninety-eighth birthday. I had the privilege to know Congressman Dow during my early career in politics. Others considered him a maverick, but I admired his courage, his honesty and his integrity. From his first days as a member of this chamber, he distinguished himself by taking principled stands on the issues, even though his stances endangered his political future. Most famously, he is remembered as one of only seven Members to take a stand against the escalation of the Vietnam War, voting to end funding for military operations in Vietnam in 1965. In one of the first votes he cast in the House he bucked his party and the very popular president who had been largely responsible for Dow's election. It would not be until many years later that Dow's vote and his activism against the Vietnam War would be regarded as prescient. As a local editorial writer pointed out some years after the controversial vote, ``Dow was a dove from the start, not one who evolved to the point of view.'' No less important was Dow's strong stance against the constitutional amendment to prohibit burning the American flag. Dow wisely argued that such an amendment would actually amend the Constitution twice--by adding a new amendment and by curtailing the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in the First Amendment, that amendment which was most prized by our founding fathers. Ultimately, that vote cost him re- election in 1968, but I cannot imagine a more honorable way to lose one's seat in Congress than in defense of the integrity of our Constitution. During his first two consecutive terms in the House, from 1965 to 1969, Congressman Dow supported some of the most important legislation of his generation. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Civil Rights movement, traveling to Jackson, Mississippi and Selma, Alabama to appear with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and fighting for funding for school integration plans. He worked hard for the passage of Johnson's Great Society programs, for the establishment of rural and community development programs for rural areas, and voted to provide minimum wage protection for farm workers. Always, Dow argued that the military buildup must not crowd out such critical domestic needs. When New York voters returned him to the House in the 1970 election, his committee assignments allowed him to shift his focus toward foreign policy and environmental protection. His record on human rights for peoples around the world was without parallel, recommending that foreign aid be directed toward ``peaceful objectives . . . and not helping other countries carry on war.'' He fought the Nixon Administration on bringing the Vietnam conflict to a close, worked to increase funding for the Peace Corps, and sought trade restrictions on apartheid-era South Africa. Congressman Dow was also instrumental in strengthening the Federal Environmental Pesticide Act of 1971, which was reported out of the Agriculture Committee riddled with loopholes to benefit polluters, and the Federal Water Pollution Amendments of 1972. He introduced legislation to establish the Council for Environmental Quality, to create a permanent House committee on the environment, and to require the federal government to use only recycled paper. When Dow lost his bid for re-election in 1972, he did not ease gently into retirement. On the contrary, he remained just as active and engaged in civic life as during his years in Congress. He ran for Congress three more times unsuccessfully, and then devoted his efforts to the burgeoning antinuclear movement. Through the early 1980s, he was a vocal opponent and stalwart activist opposing the Reagan Administration's defense policies. He continued to argue aggressively that out of control military spending was hurting the economy and denying Americans adequate health care and education. Throughout his long and full life, John Dow never failed to be on the side of peace, justice and economic opportunity for all. He devoted his life to these principles and stuck to them even when it was not politically convenient to do so. His moral compass never strayed and his compassion for others never wavered. For me, he embodied the highest ideals of representation in this body. I believe Congressman Dow's former colleague and esteemed veteran of this body, the late Congressman Morris Udall (D-Ariz) said it best: ``Vigorous, kind, candid, honest with himself, his constituents and his colleagues--John Dow is a most remarkable man and public service. I am proud to be his friend.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, to publicly disagree with the President in wartime is seen by some as being somehow un-American. However, such dissent in this country has a long and distinguished heritage. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison protested John Adams' undeclared war against France. Madison in turn presided over a war so unpopular that it caused the New England States to consider secession. Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams also criticized President James Polk's war on Mexico; and Theodore Roosevelt harshly criticized President Woodrow Wilson's handling of World War I. Efforts to stifle criticism of the President and his administration during war also have a long history in this country. The Sedition Act of 1798 led to the arrest of many who criticized the Adams administration. A new Sedition Act was passed and enforced during World War I. It was not until 1964 that the Supreme Court effectively eliminated the crime of sedition in the United States and reaffirmed the constitutional right of free expression. But my own recent experience and the experience of others who opposed military action against Iraq demonstrates that there are still many who believe freedom of speech should be curtailed when American troops go into battle. Respected elected officials have been lambasted for criticizing President Bush's foreign policy failures. Musical groups have been boycotted for making their anti-war feelings known. A screening of Bull Durham at the Baseball Hall of Fame was cancelled because two of its stars are outspoken peace advocates. When Lincoln was challenged to defend his dissent in 1848, he explained that the Founding Fathers' decision to give war-making powers to Congress was primarily influenced by a long history of oppressive kings involving their peoples in wars under the pretense that it was for the public good. ``But your view,'' Lincoln argued to his correspondent, ``destroys the whole matter and places our President where kings have always stood.'' Lincoln saw a great peril in the contention that the President should be the sole judge of the necessity to invade another country. He wrote, ``Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary . . . and you allow him to make war at his pleasure.'' Theodore Roosevelt had strong views on the need to speak out in wartime. Regarding the Sedition Act of 1918, Roosevelt wrote, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.'' In that one eloquent sentence, Roosevelt neatly summed up the point that needs to be made. When we disagree with the President and his administration during a war, we have not merely a right but a responsibility to publicly air those disagreements. Accepting that responsibility is imperative for the survival of the Republic as we know it. Without it the checks and balances of our separated system of government would be lost. The suppression of dissent in wartime would provide an unscrupulous or overzealous President with additional motivation to wage war. Senator Robert LaFollette said it best on a speech on the Senate floor in 1917. ``It is no answer . . . to say that when the war is over, the citizen may once more resume his rights and feel some security in his liberty and passion. . . . If every preparation for war can be made the excuse for destroying free speech and a free press . . . then we may well despair of ever again finding ourselves for a long period in a state of peace.'' LaFollette was not un-American nor were Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt. They were patriots in the true sense of the word as are Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks. Patriotism is defined as ``love for or devotion to one's country.'' Our country is not one President or one administration or one military action or even one flag. It is a place where we are free to openly disagree with our President and his decisions. That is what our country stands for. That is the principle to which we are devoted, and that is what we love. The most recent ostensible reason we went to war to remove Saddam's regime was to bring this principle to Iraq. Would we have any credibility as freedom preachers if there were no public disagreement in our own home? Vocal displays of dissent during war do not hurt the cause of democracy and freedom. On the contrary, they provide a shining example for those parts of the world that are not yet free. Let us continue to show the world what it is like to live in a country where one can protest against its leaders without fear of reprisal. Let us continue to speak out. Let us continue to be true patriots.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Linda Moseman Raymond, for her exceptional leadership and community service. Mrs. Raymond is a resident of Woodstock, New York and is currently serving as Department President of the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of New York. The American Legion Auxiliary is the largest women's patriotic service organization in the world. Their primary goals are to serve veterans, their families, and children in their communities and to promote patriotism and Americanism. Mrs. Raymond is a charter member of the Woodstock Unit #1026 in Ulster County. She is presently employed at AMETEK Rotron as the Customer Service Manager. She manages the Department and is responsible for all European accounts and export compliance for the company. Mrs. Raymond has been very active in her community, serving as an EMT on the Woodstock Rescue Squad, a firefighter in the Woodstock Fire Department and an Instructor in CPR and Water Safety. Each year the Department President chooses a project of particular interest to her and raises funds to assist in that effort. Having dealt closely with community emergency situations, Mrs. Raymond has chosen to raise funds for two children's burn camps- the New York City Firefighters Burn Center Foundation and the Strong Memorial Hospital Burn Camp through the Rochester Medical Center Burn Unit. Both burn camps provide the opportunity for children having suffered the devastating effects of burns to spend some time in a summer camp with specially trained counselors, nurses, psychologists and firefighters. Through her community volunteer work, Mrs. Raymond has seen first hand the tragic effects that severe burns have on the lives of children. To be able to spend time with other children that do not stare or judge, tease or ridicule their burn injuries is necessary for these children. To date, more than $40,000 has been raised through the efforts of the members in The American Legion Auxiliary in New York. Mrs. Raymond has always been a strong supporter of children's programs, and she has clearly demonstrated her dedication again as she promotes this worthwhile cause. The American Legion Auxiliary is proud of the efforts on her behalf. During these difficult times for our nation, Mrs. Raymond's service to these children is most noteworthy. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the American Legion Auxiliary in honoring Linda Moseman Raymond for her ongoing commitment to children and to her community.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I am now introducing a resolution to express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Communications Commission should not revise its media ownership rules without more extensive review and comment by the public. I am doing this because the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Powell, made an announcement in March that he was going to further revise the rules of the Federal Communications Commission which would make it possible for fewer owners to control the information distribution system in America. In doing so, he is continuing a process which effectively began in the early 1980s when such things as the right of people in communities to express themselves over the airwaves when editorial positions were taken by radio stations with which they did not agree was abolished. This was a provision that existed in the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and effectively in the laws of our country since the period of the Second World War. As a result of that change and others, what we have seen is, for example, in the radio area, 80 percent of the radio audience being in effect controlled by three major corporations. In other words, three major corporations broadcast to 80 percent of the radio audience. We have lost diversity in our radio programming. We have lost the very important aspect of local control. We have lost the sense of community in radio and television broadcasting as a result of the changes that were begun during the Reagan administration in the 1980s and, now, are being attempted to continue under the jurisdiction of Mr. Powell, the present chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. What Mr. Powell under the direction of the present administration is doing, is this: he is now going to go beyond the fact that fewer people can control the electronic media, radio and television; he is also going to issue an order, he says, which will allow those same people that control the electronic media to now control increasingly the print media as well. So if one owns a radio station and a television station in a particular service area, one will be able to own the newspapers in that area as well, thanks to the ruling that Mr. Powell is putting forward as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very dangerous thing. I think it is important for us to do everything that we can to allow local aspects of communication to take place and local control of media, and diversity in the media and quality in the media. Much of this has been lost as a result of the present consolidation that has occurred over the course of now more than 20 years. Mr. Powell is now going to increase that and make it worse so that there will be less diversity of opinion, less local control, and more consolidation of views in our country. And he has done this, interestingly enough, without proper notice to the public and without adequate public hearings. Now, one would think that a Federal agency embarking upon such a project would give adequate time for review by the Congress and, more importantly, by the general public. No, Mr. Powell has not conducted his activities in that way. One public hearing outside of Washington, DC was held. That was held conveniently in Richmond, Virginia. It is a very lovely city, but it is just down the road. There were no hearings held in Boston or San Diego or Chicago or Des Moines or Albuquerque or Dallas. No hearings held in other places across the country so that people could have an opportunity to understand what was happening to them, what was happening to the communication media in their country so that they could have an opportunity to react to it appropriately. So this resolution, Mr. Speaker, which I am offering to the House of Representatives and I am asking my colleagues for their kind support, would call upon the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to halt what he is doing, to provide for additional public hearings, to give the public ample time to understand what is happening with the communication media in our Nation. Because most of these activities have been below the radar. They have been carried out surreptitiously. They have been carried out in ways so as not to attract attention, and that has been done, I believe, consciously because the perpetrators of this activity have understood that if it attracted public attention, it would also attract public dissent and public opposition. So we need to be more careful about the way in which the Federal Communications Commission acts. The Federal Communications Commission was set up by legislation passed by this Congress, but this Congress has not exercised its proper jurisdiction over the way the FCC operates. And, as a result, we are seeing this very invidious consolidation of communication which is acting contrary to the best interests of the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), for yielding me this time; and I also want to express my appreciation to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for bringing this resolution to the floor this evening so that we can have an opportunity to congratulate this wonderful basketball team. We all recognize and admire the very justified pride that our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), feels in this basketball team from the university that bears the name of his hometown. But all of us in New York share in that pride as well. Syracuse University is not a very large school, by some of the national standards; but it is a university in which we all share a great deal of pride. It is a university that is known for its academic achievements and for its athletic prowess, and that athletic prowess was demonstrated earlier this week, as anyone who knows basketball and loves the game of basketball recognized as being one of the best basketball games that any of us have ever seen. It was played by two teams, each of which had great talent, and they played with all their heart, each one wanting to win. But it was the mighty Men of Orange from Syracuse University who emerged the victor, and tonight we share in their achievement and in their pride and we take this opportunity, along with their Congressman, to offer our deep congratulations for this terrific effort.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor posthumously Captain Laszlo Ocskay, a courageous and righteous individual whose actions saved the lives of thousands of Jews during the Nazi occupation of Budapest, Hungary in 1944-1945. I am not the first to recognize Captain Ocskay's outstanding humanitarian service on this floor, and I proudly add my voice to those who have paid tribute to this remarkable man's life. Much of the recognition of Captain's Ocskay's historic contributions has fortunately come to light in recent years thanks to the research and writings of Dan Danieli of Riverdale, New York. Captain Laszlo Ocskay served in the Austro-Hungarian army as an officer during World War I, during which he suffered wounds to his leg that left him ineligible for active service in the post-war Hungarian army. Captain Ocskay remained on inactive reserve until 1944 when he requested to be reactivated to the 101/359 Labor Service Battalion. Despite his injuries, Captain Ocskay was appointed to the post of Commanding Officer of Labor Service Battalion, assigned the task of collecting and warehousing clothes. At great risk to his personal safety, Captain Ocskay sought and then used this position to protect and sustain more than two thousand men, women and children who were threatened by the Hungarian Arrow-Cross's increasing violence against Jews in Budapest. Against official policy, Captain Ocskay allowed many escapees from other forced labor units, survivors of anti-Jewish campaigns, family members of the men in his labor service, and others facing persecution to join the ranks of the 101/359 Battalion. Through his connections with sympathetic German military officials and his partnership with Section-T of the International Red Cross, Captain Ocskay was able to successfully shield these individuals from the increasing persecution of Jewish residents as well as provide them with food, medicine and other necessities. The Section-T was in fact quite dependent on Captain Ocskay, who opened his private home to be used as their headquarters, as well as a sanctuary for a small number of Jews in hiding. Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who rescued tens of thousands of Jews during this same period, is also known to have operated from Captain Ocskay's home and was hidden at his house shortly before being captured by the Soviet troops. Captain Ocskay persevered in his extraordinary efforts to protect the lives and safety of those in his labor camp until the Soviet liberation of the Labor Camps. Following the end of World War II, Captain Ocskay was arrested numerous times by the communists who alleged that he was an American spy. Captain Ocskay's position in an American oil company's Budapest office and his ties with Wallenberg and others who the Soviets had disappeared may have made him suspect. After repeated arrests and releases, he escaped to Austria and then later moved to the United States to live with his son. Captain Ocskay died in 1966 in Kingston, New York, where he is buried. He is survived by his son, George Ocskay, his daughter-in-law, Helen Ocskay, and his granddaughter, Elisabeth. Captain Ocskay's outstanding humanitarian contributions were largely unrecognized during his lifetime. He was however posthumously awarded a gold metal by the President of Hungary, and the city of Budapest has honored him with a permanent public memorial. Certainly, Captain Ocskay's bravery and resolve in the face of the inhuman and brutal Holocaust perpetuated against European Jews stands as an important reminder of the difference that principled and moral individuals can make against even the most egregious manifestations of human hatred and bigotry. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the Jewish Federation of Ulster County this April 27, 2003 in honoring the distinguished legacy of Captain Ocskay and in paying tribute to his surviving family members.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Republic of Tunisia and its people on the 47th Anniversary of their National Day of Independence. Over the last 47 years, Tunisia has been an outstanding model for developing countries. It has risen from a fledgling democracy to a nation that is at the forefront of instituting an aggressive North African free market economy. The United States and Tunisia have maintained a strong relationship throughout Tunisia's history. During the Cold War, Tunisia was a crucial partner in the Mediterranean region. In our struggle against terrorism, dating back to the early 1990s, Tunisia has been a steadfast ally. As early as 1993, Tunisia condemned forms of Islamic extremism and terrorism. In 1994, Tunisia warned the West of terrorism's evils and spoke of the need to fight terrorism on a global level. The relationship between our countries has only been strengthened over the past two years, as we both act to confront the scourge of terrorism. Tunisia's unwavering opposition to terrorism is no more evident than in its response to the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Immediately following the attacks, Tunisia's President, Zine El Abidine Bel Ali, offered his country's heartfelt condolences to the American people and strongly condemned the attacks and those behind them. President Ben Ali also offered his country's steadfast support for our efforts to bring those responsible to justice. Tunisia's steadfast cooperation and support continues today. As a friend of Tunisia, I again congratulate the Tunisian people on 47 years of independence and would like to share with my colleagues the insightful words of President Ben Ali, describing the reasons for Tunisia's success in building a democratic society: ``Tolerance is at the heart of our social traditions as well as a characteristic of Tunisia's history. Pluralism, whether religious, cultural, or political, is ingrained in our society. Tunisian Moslems and Jews have lived together under the same sky and same state for many centuries. Each contributed to the building of [Tunisia], whose greatness is based on the tolerance of its people--a tolerance which has been among the highest values governing relations between the two parties, as there was no room for hatred.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and thank him for providing me an opportunity to express my deep affection and respect for Wayne Owens and his memory. I can say that we were very good friends, even though our tenure here in the House of Representatives did not coincide. He was leaving for the second time, actually, as I was coming in in 1993; but we were associated by virtue of the fact that we were interested in similar issues. Two of those issues most principally were the protection and preservation of open space in the State of Utah and peace in the Middle East. It was because of the initiative of Wayne Owens that I became the sponsor of a very significant piece of legislation here in the House of Representatives which would set aside a vast amount of publicly owned land in the State of Utah to be incorporated within that property owned by the Federal Government which is declared wilderness; in other words, affording it the highest level of protection for today and for future generations. Future generations is what Wayne Owens often had in mind, whether he was working on environmental issues or working with young people in his own State of Utah or elsewhere. He was also, as we all know, dedicated to the idea of bringing about peace in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians and others in that part of the world. He first developed this intense interest as a result of his missionary work for the Mormon Church. He was, of course, a devout Mormon, and had, as all Mormons do, performed significant missionary work on behalf of the Mormon Church. It was in that cause that he first became intimately acquainted with the details and difficulties of the circumstances that prevail, and that have prevailed, for some time in the Middle East, and which led him to establish the Center for Middle East Peace, which later became the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Development. As the director of that center, he led many of us in this Congress on numerous trips to that part of the world, at least for two reasons: to better acquaint Members of Congress with the circumstances that prevail in Israel and the surrounding area, and also to enlist us in his work to bring about a peaceful settlement to the political difficulties that prevail there. With Wayne Owens I have had the opportunity to be in Israel on numerous occasions; also in Beirut, and in Damascus; throughout the southern Mediterranean: in Tunisia and Morocco, Egypt, Algeria; and throughout the Saudi Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf States, as well. Always, Wayne was well received by the political leaders of all of those countries. They were well acquainted with him, they liked him personally, they understood the devotion and intensity that he brought to his work, and they respected him deeply for all of that. So whenever any of us traveled with Wayne, we were always treated well by everyone with whom we came into contact, not only because we were Members of the Congress, but also because we were traveling with Wayne Owens, who they knew and respected in the way that I have just described. I and everyone who knew him were deeply shocked at his loss, by the suddenness of his death. He was a man of such energy and vitality we all could not help but think that he would go on for a long, long time doing the very good work that he has done. It is still hard to believe that he has been taken from us in the midst of his work; but so it is, and so we miss him and respect him. I believe that all of us will continue to show that respect by continuing our devotion to the cause to which he in fact devoted his life, and that is, the cause of bringing peace to the Middle East. I thank Wayne Owens, and I want to also at this moment express my deep appreciation to his wife and his family, who suffered, I guess is the best way to put it, his work. They allowed him to carry it on. They knew he was doing, in effect, the Lord's work. He was doing work that they appreciated and understood. I want to express my appreciation to his wife and family for allowing him to do all the good things that he did. We miss him very, very deeply, we admire him, and we feel deeply his loss.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has been choosing ideology over economics when making decisions about environmental, health and safety regulations. An ideology that devalues future generations and the environment. An ideology that seriously distorts the benefits of public protection. An ideology that says a 15 year-old who dies from a car crash is worth protecting more than a 15 year-old who dies from cancer following exposure at birth to a carcinogen. OMB is forcing EPA, FDA, DOT and all other federal agencies to underestimate the benefits of life-saving regulations and skew regulatory decision-making against protective safeguards. Mr. Kucinich's amendment corrects a serious problem with OMB's way of calculating the benefits of environmental, health and safety regulations. This amendment addresses a fundamental, ethical question that underlies the practice of discounting the value of future reductions in fatal risk (also known as the value of a statistical life). This is a complicated issue, but I think I have a few questions to illustrate the point: How much is it worth to you to never hear that your daughter, or grandson, or niece, or neighbor has Leukemia? How much would you pay to reduce your spouse's risk of getting Multiple Sclerosis in 10 years? What do you think a pregnant woman would pay to reduce the risk of her unborn baby developing asthma when he enters first grade? For most of us, reducing the risk of danger is valuable--even if the risk is in the future. The fear, pain and dread of avoiding risk and protecting health are worth a lot now. OMB serves as the gatekeeper for regulatory reviews in the White House through its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Recently the head of this office, Administrator John Graham, issued a directive to federal agencies concerning the implementation of cost-benefit analysis and is in the process of developing guidance on the discounting of life. Unfortunately, these requirements and other actions being taken by OMB will worsen the tendency of these cost-benefit tests to overstate costs and undervalue benefits. One of the main ways in which cost-benefit tests can be biased is by placing a value on human life that is too low. One technique with this kind of bias is called discounting, which lowers the importance of someone's death if they die from a hazard that has a delayed effect, such as toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and cancer causing agents. OMB discounts the value of future risks at a 7 percent discount rate. This is significantly higher than those of many other federal agencies and many economists. The Kucinich amendment recognizes that the value of future risks in valuing a statistical life should not be discounted at all. It is not true that non-monetary benefits, such as health, safety, and environmental benefits, are worth less tomorrow than if they were immediate. Discounting the value of future health, safety, and environmental benefits--which cannot be invested--at the same rate used to discount money is illogical because such benefits do not become less valuable over time, the way that money does. In some cases, particularly with respect to environmental regulations, benefits actually become more valuable. For instance, it would certainly be less costly to implement programs to reduce global warming in the present than to pay for its very costly consequences decades from now. The shenanigans that surrounded EPA's arsenic rule highlight the importance of the Kucinich amendment. Don't tell me that a rule that reduces a child's risk of cancer by lowering arsenic exposure should be driven by controversial--and in my opinion venal--cost/benefit assumptions. By its very nature, discounting pushes regulatory decision-making in an anti-environmental direction by ignoring some of the most serious environmental threats to human health. This tilted playing field becomes the most exaggerated when the issues necessarily have a long time-horizon, such as nuclear wastes and climate change. The Kucinich amendment helps to correct one of the most serious biases of cost-benefit analyses. The proper treatment of the value of life is one of the most important features we should expect from regulations designed to protect all of us. As a result, I fully support Mr. Kucinich's ``Value of Human Life Amendment.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in traffic today while returning to the Capitol from my congressional district. This forced me to miss rollcall Nos. 465 and 466. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Sober Borders Act and ``yes'' on the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter and proud member of the Taiwan Caucus, I would like to recognize and congratulate Taiwan today on its 91st National Day. Taiwan has made many significant accomplishments during its brief history. Taiwan has been a true friend to the U.S., and one of our major trading partners. Taiwan is one of the largest export markets for many states, including New York. With a population of 23 million, the island of Taiwan is the world's 12th largest economy and seventh largest market for U.S. exports worldwide. Trade between Taiwan and the U.S. presently tops $51 billion. Most importantly, these economic ties have strengthened our bilateral relationship. Taiwan is a thriving democracy, supportive of political freedoms and human rights. Its constitution guarantees citizens freedom of assembly, expression and association, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. Taiwan conducts free and fair elections, and is home to more than 90 political parties. I applaud Taiwan's commitment to upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and the Declaration and Action Program of the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights. I thank Taiwan for providing humanitarian assistance to Afghan refugees, and for its generous contributions to the International Community. The U.S. is firmly committed to the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, and supports the details of the 2000 Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. We must continue to support Taiwan's defense by offering a robust arms sales package, and recognize Taiwan's need for operational training to effectively use U.S. weapons in case of need. I fully support Taiwan's efforts to join the World Health Organization. Last year, the House and Senate unanimously passed a bill authorizing the State Department to develop a plan to assist Taiwan in achieving observer status at the annual WHO Assembly. The President signed this important bill into law in May 2001. Last year, President Chen Shui-ban made a transit stop in the U.S. The dignified treatment Taiwan's democratic leader received was encouraging. I support lifting restrictions on high-level visits by officials from Taiwan to help promote a balanced understanding of issues on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan's President Chen Shui-ban was one of the first world leaders to condemn the events of September 11th and to support U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. I am pleased to express my appreciation for Taiwan's gestures of goodwill on this day of celebration.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House without the Lee amendment takes this country and the world on a dangerous and potentially tragic course. It is so, first of all, because the resolution violates our own Constitution because it devolves war-making authority from the Congress to the executive branch. It also puts us in violation of our commitments to the United Nations. But fundamentally it puts us on a dangerous and potentially tragic course because if we follow the resolution, if that resolution is prosecuted by the administration and attacks Iraq unilaterally, that action will galvanize the most fundamental, radical elements of Islam. It strengthens Wahhabism and it will bring to their cause tens of thousands of new recruits who are prepared to wage war against this country in the way it was waged on September 11 of last year. That will be the end result of the passage and prosecution of the resolution, absent the Lee amendment. We must pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the majority party in this House on the success of the Republican economic plan. About 22 months ago the Bush administration roared into town and rammed a record more than $1 trillion tax cut for millionaires through this Congress, when both Houses were controlled by the Republican Party. What is the record since then? Unemployment is increasing, job creation has reversed. The jobs that were created during the previous decade have now fallen off. Poverty is on the rise. Poverty in America is increasing again. For the previous 9 years, the poverty rate went down in America, year after year after year. Last year, the first year of this administration, as a result of an economic program rammed through this House, the poverty rate is going back up again and this year it is the same thing. Incomes are falling. The fact of the matter is the rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer as a result of this great economic plan. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are now filing for bankruptcy. Mortgage foreclosures across the country are at record highs. The Federal budget deficit is increasing. Two years ago we had a budget surplus of almost $87 billion. This year the on-budget deficit will be $314 billion. That is a $400 billion turnaround in less than 2 years. This represents the largest budget decline in U.S. history in that period of time; the third largest on-budget deficit in history, exceeded in size only by the deficits of 1991 and 1992 when the first Bush was the President. The continuing resolution that we are being asked to pass today has to be seen in the context of this plan. We are passing this continuing resolution because we have not been able to pass appropriations bills; and we have not been able to pass appropriations bills, not because of the work of the Committee on Appropriations, because the Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has done its work. We have not been able to pass the appropriations bills because this House passed a budget resolution this year which was unreasonable and impossible to meet because of that tax cut. We are not able to fund the needs of the American people, and perhaps that is why we have frozen education spending. That is why the wanted Leave No Child program is essentially not advancing the interests of one single child in America, because we have not put a nickel in the Leave No Child Behind program, and this is probably why we are reducing funding for transportation in this continuing resolution by another $4 billion, because the budget resolution that we have is unreasonable and unrealistic, and we are unable to get a spending program that meets the needs of the people of this country. That is the problem we face right now.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that. But I would just like to make the observation that, while the gentleman's offer is made sincerely and I respect him, as I always do, and everything he says on this floor and everything that he does, I think that he is not providing the opportunity that many people in this House earnestly desire and I think the people of this country earnestly desire, and that is a fair and open exchange on the merits of this resolution. I ask, how can we have a fair and open exchange on the merits of this resolution when those who are opposed to the resolution, regardless of what party they may belong to, are not provided the opportunity to make their case? They are only given a fourth of the opportunity, while those who favor the opposition are given three-fourths. This is inherently an unfair circumstance.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) is about to ask that the time allotted to the Democratic side of the aisle be divided equally between those Members who are in favor of the resolution and those Members who are opposed to the resolution. This is a motion that I fully and enthusiastically support, but I would like to make the observation that while there are Members on the other side of the aisle who are opposed to the resolution, no similar request has been made to divide that time equally. If no request is made to divide that half of the time which is allotted to the debate for this resolution, then it will develop that we will have a debate dominated by those who favor the resolution because three-quarters of the time will be allocated to those Members who favor the resolution, and only one-fourth will be allocated to those who oppose the resolution. It seems to me that this situation is inherently unfair. Therefore, I would request that the majority party also divide the time allotted to them so that half of that time may be distributed among Members who are opposed to the resolution. In that way we will have a fairer debate. If we enter this debate with three-quarters of the time distributed to one side and only one-fourth to the other, it is obvious that the weight of the debate will be unfair going in, and that those who oppose the resolution will be facing a stacked deck. That is not appropriate or in keeping with the traditions of this House. Now, I know a rule was passed earlier in the day, and perhaps it may have been more appropriate to make this statement or something similar to it at that time. Nevertheless, that time has now lapsed. This is the only time that is available to raise this issue and to make this request, which I make in all earnestness and all seriousness. Mr. Speaker, we are about to vote on a resolution, the result of which is likely to cause the deaths of unknown numbers of unknown people should it prevail. This is the most serious matter that can be addressed by the Members of this free and open body. Therefore, it seems to me that this debate ought to be conducted in a free and open manner. Allocating the time, and I believe that this is a very short time which has been allocated for this debate, it should be much longer, but given the fact that we have only this short amount of time, that time ought to be divided equally so that those people who are opposed to the resolution will have the opportunity to make their case in the same amount of time as those people who favor the resolution.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I earnestly thank the gentleman for his efforts made today. It seems to me that the rejection of the gentleman's efforts constitutes a mistake on the part of the people who made that decision. His voice ought to have been heard. He ought to have been listened to when he asked for a proper allocation of time. He ought to have been listened to when he asked for the opportunity to present an amendment on this resolution. He was not. We now have an opportunity to rectify those mistakes. Furthermore, the allocation of 3 minutes to defend the Constitution of the United States seems to me to be wholly inadequate and unworthy of this body. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly request that the request of the gentleman who just spoke be recognized by the majority party in this House, that fairness be honored by the majority in this House, and that they divide the time that has been given to them so that those people who are opposed to this resolution, earnestly and devoutly opposed to it, will have an equal time to express that devotion and earnestness in opposition to this resolution as those who favor it. I make that request.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I appreciate it, but again I appeal to the House because I believe a mistake has been made. A small amount of time, in my view too small amount of time, has been allocated to this debate. This is a matter of such utmost seriousness which involves issues of life and death as well as the interpretation of this body of the United States Constitution and the division of powers between the executive and legislative branches, so much so that to provide such a small amount of time is unreasonable and unwarranted in this case. We have the opportunity to provide as much time as we want. We do not have to limit this debate to 2 days. We can give it much more time than that. In that context, again, it seems to me that if we are going to have a fair and open exchange of views on this issue, it is essential that those people who are in opposition to the resolution have as much time as those who are in favor of it.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.