Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a Parliamentary inquiry. I want to ask if it is appropriate to request an extension of the time allotted for this debate in accordance with the rules.

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

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. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and I thank the Chair for his forbearance and I ask an opportunity to go on for no more than another 2 minutes. I appreciate what the gentleman said, and I recognize his sincerity. However, I believe that the House has made a mistake and that we have the opportunity now to correct that mistake and that people of goodwill recognizing the mistake will do so. That is, step forward honestly, forthrightly and correct the mistake that has been made in the context of the rule. We need to debate this issue fairly and openly, and it seems to me and I think it would seem to any fair-minded person, not just the Members of this House but any fair-minded American, that it is not possible to have a fair and open and equitable debate when the time has been so misallocated, three-quarters of it given to those who favor the resolution and a quarter for those who oppose.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate that sentiment on the part of the gentleman. I know that he is sincere. However, if that procedure is to be adopted, we ought to have a vote on it now. Now is the time to make that decision, because I do not know that at some point in the future the gentleman may change his mind or at some point in the future he may not be recognized or some other event might intervene between now and then. I think that that decision ought to be made now.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I join the other Members of this House in paying tribute to a great veteran in service of his country, Benjamin A. Gilman. It has already been mentioned how he served this country as a member of the United States Army Air Corps in the Second World War, rising to the office of Staff Sergeant and serving in 35 missions, and how he earned the Distinguished Service Cross in service to his country. Ben Gilman also went on to serve his country in the State legislature of the State of New York, serving for 3 consecutive terms before he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1972 where he has served for 3 decades in elegant and effective service to his constituents in New York and the people of this country. I can remember the day in 1972 when Ben was elected. In fact, the day after he was elected, because on that day he did something which is unusual for a successful candidate for public office. The day after he was first elected to the House of Representatives, that next morning, that morning he was on the street of Middletown, greeting people and thanking them for their support in electing him to this distinguished office. In the 3 decades that he has served here, he has provided great service to the people of our State and this Nation. But mostly he will be recognized for his service on the Committee on International Relations and its predecessor and his tenure as chairman of that committee for three successive terms. He will be recognized as a staunch and just defender of the State of Israel. And in addition to that, he will also be recognized as one who stood for the oppressed minority everywhere in the world. Ben Gilman is a great defender of human rights. And he has not cared what the human in that sentence looked like or how they prayed or how they behaved. No matter what their individuals circumstances, all he had to know was that they were suffering in some way and that way was unjust, and he was there rushing to their side in all corners of this globe. It is a pleasure to have served with him now for this past decade, to have known him personally as a friend and as a colleague, and to stand here this morning with the rest of the Members of this House to pay tribute to his great service as an outstanding veteran in service to this country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the World War II veterans from the crew of the USS Bennion 662 on their reunion. The Bennion is one of many destroyers that participated in WWII. The majority of the men who served in the USS Bennion were just 17 years old when they signed up to serve their country. The crew of 300 faced immeasurable dangers from Japanese Kamikazes and destroyers. They were exposed to enemy torpedo attacks and air raids. Fortunately, the Bennion crew survived because of their skillful coordination and the indivisible combination of men and material, which bounded them together for a common purpose. The Bennion was given a citation that reads: “For extraordinary heroism in the action as a Fighter Direction Ship on Radar Picket duty, during Okinawa Campaign, April 1, 1945 to June 1, 1945. A natural and frequent target of the heavy Japanese aerial attack while occupying advanced and isolated stations, the USS Bennion defeated all efforts of enemy Kamikaze and dive-bombing planes to destroy her. Constantly vigilant and ready for battle day and night, she sent out early air warnings, provided fighter direction and, with her own fierce gunfire downed 13 hostile planes, and she rendered a valiant service in preventing the Japanese from striking in force the naval forces off the Okinawa Beachhead. A valiant fighting ship, the Bennion, her officers and her men withstood the stress and perils of vital radar-picked duty, achieving a gallant combat record which attests the teamwork, courage and skill of her entire company and enhances the finest traditions of the United States Naval Services.” Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to welcome and salute the crew of Bennion 662 in their reunion. It is my pleasure to join the members, family and friends of this crew in extending my deepest appreciation for their outstanding services and sacrifice for our country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Broome- Tioga Association for Retarded Citizens in celebration of its 50th anniversary. I am honored to congratulate the ARC for its 50 years of service to Broome and Tioga counties. ARC began its activities with a small group of families and individuals, which provided educational and recreational activities for their disabled children. In its infancy, the group organized a half-day pre-school program for 3- to 8-year-olds in the Trinity Memorial Parish House. In 1952, the ARC founders, a group of eight local families, met to discuss the need for services for mentally retarded children. The Broome County chapter of the New York Association for the Help of Retarded Children was founded on September 9, 1952. A primary class for 8 to 12 year olds was set up in the Presbyterian Church. The founders raised money with bake sales and by obtaining small donations. For 50 years, ARC has served our community with diligence and care. Over time, the ARC has expanded its services to provide compassionate care to thousands of retarded citizens. It opened full-time classrooms for primary and intermediate mentally retarded children. The school programming expanded to three classrooms, as the primary program moved to Woodrow Wilson School in Binghamton and the pre-school program moved to Your Home Library in Johnson City. A half-day nursery school class for 3–5 year olds was also established. In 1964, the Tioga ARC Chapter was formed and opened its first workshop for adults in downtown Binghamton. In 1974, the Tioga and Broome County associations merged and began to provide social opportunities through its Party Night Programs. In 1977, ARC opened Supervised Community Residences on Chapin and Main streets in Binghamton and on Broad Street in Endicott. Additionally, it established the Carlton Street Supervised Apartment Housing complex, where the New Day Training program began. It also established the Pre-Vocational Day Training Program, which served 20 people. ARC's Day Treatment Program was its first Medicaid-funded program. ARC began to provide employment opportunities through its Supported Employment Services. Additionally, it established the Family Support Services Program to assist families in maintaining their children at home. It also established the Individual Support Services Residential Program, providing necessary assistance to individuals. In 1994, ARC opened the Tioga County Multi-Functional Facility in Owego. The site is the county's first provider for people with developmental disabilities. The Day Habilitation Program, established in both Broome and Tioga counties, provides services to 175 individuals. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to salute the Broome-Tioga ARC for its many years of distinguished service to our community. It is my pleasure to join the members, family and friends of ARC in extending my deepest appreciation for its outstanding services.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution calling upon the other House to join in the permanent repeal of the estate tax I think reduces cynicism to a new low. The permanent repeal of the estate tax, first of all, very obviously benefits only a handful, a tiny fraction of the American people; but the other problem has to do with the other taxes that have been repealed by this House or reduced by this House. A study just out today by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute shows the fraudulent nature of that tax cut. It shows how middle-income people are being forced into the alternative minimum tax. It shows how middle-income people across the country are going to pay up to $1 trillion in alternative minimum taxes over the course of the next decade. It shows how the tax cut that was rammed through this House in the early days of 2001 by the Bush administration, when the Republicans controlled both Houses of the Congress, is shifting the burden of taxation away from the rich and to the middle class. Middle-income people are paying more and more taxes under their so- called tax cut while millionaires are paying less and less taxes; and that is what they want to do with this particular tax cut today, to the estate tax, and of course, they have not figured out how to pay for any of this. What they have done is taken us from a situation of budget surpluses just 2 years ago to a situation now of increasing budget deficits. That is how they are paying for these programs, shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle income and paying for it by requiring the people of this country to borrow more money, putting into jeopardy the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund. That is where they are borrowing the money. So while they give tax cuts to millionaires, they jeopardize the Social Security trust fund, they jeopardize the Medicare trust fund, and they make the government borrow more money. This is cynicism at its worst.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to remind us all that it is interesting to have resolutions on the floor that recommend action by the other body, but the important thing is for us to do our work here. I am a member of the Committee on Appropriations. We have eight of the 13 appropriations bills which have been dealt with by the committee, but which have not been put out here on the floor to be dealt with by the full body. Why is that? The main reason is because the leadership of this House has taken an approach to fiscal policy which is totally unreasonable and unrealistic. This is not anything new; it has been going on now for a couple of years. My Republican colleagues have taken us from a situation within the Federal budget of growing surpluses to now deepening deficits, and they do not know how to deal with it. They do not know how to solve the problem that they have created for the people of this country with growing deficits in the Federal budget. They cannot fund the necessary things that need to be done. In addition to that, there is a whole host of issues that are crying out for attention; most notably, a prescription drug program which will allow the senior citizens of this country to get the medication they need to restore themselves to health and to maintain their health. We have a good bill. If we want to talk about something the Senate has done, they have passed a good bill. Their bill provides for a prescription drug program as an entitlement under Medicare. That is what the AARP wants, that is what all of the associations that represent senior citizens want, and it is what the older people of our country want. They want an entitlement program under Medicare for prescription drugs. You refuse to bring that bill out. Why? Because you are the great beneficiaries of the largesse of the pharmaceutical companies. They have made enormous contributions to the Republican Party in this House in order to keep this bill from getting to the floor. So instead of telling the Senate what they need to do, let us deal with our own business right here in this House.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this presents us with a very interesting situation. First, we are told that the employees of the Homeland Security Department cannot have civil service protection. They cannot be unionized. We want to be flexible with them. If they make any mistakes, we want to throw them out. Yet, at the same time, what do we do with regard to corporate entities that work for the Homeland Security Department? If the Secretary approves any design for any material or product that they sell to homeland security, so long as the Secretary approves it, that corporation is exempt from any product-liability suits. The manager's amendment, however, goes even further. It protects corporate wrongdoers from any kind of action whatsoever. If the product does not work, if the product does not work because the corporation was fraudulent in its submission, if the product does not work because they willfully or maliciously made it so that it would not work effectively, nevertheless, they are exempt from any kind of lawsuits. This situation that we are presented with and asked to vote for is totally absurd. You want to have a circumstance whereby people are going to feel protected and will be protected. And if they are going to be protected, you have to have the ability to have confidence in the corporate entities, the private sector people who are supplying the new homeland security office. Under the provision of this bill and particularly under the amendment, all of that confidence goes out the window. Why should we have any ounce of confidence if people can produce bad product and not have to be responsible for the product they produce? This is a bad piece of legislation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, beginning in 1995, the leadership of this Congress was successful in the following deregulatory efforts. They shielded accountants and corporations from shareholder lawsuits. They killed new Securities and Exchange Commission proposals to increase standards to ensure that auditors are independent and objective in certifying corporate numbers. They cut the Securities and Exchange Commission budget, essentially limiting their ability to protect investors from security scam artists. They passed deregulation of energy derivatives, which enabled Enron to run wild, and they opposed President Clinton's efforts to participate in international efforts to check offshore tax havens. In other words, they created the climate and increased the incentives to commit the kind of corporate fraud that has robbed millions of Americans of their pensions and financial security. This bill corrects some of those, let me call them, mistakes. But it does not do all that needs to be done. It does not deal with the issue of corrupt manipulation of stock options. It does not deal with the problem of fraudulent IPOs. Yes, this bill is a good bill as far as it goes. It is certainly better than that cream puff legislation that was out here last April or the fraudulent piece that came out here last week. This is a much better effort and deals to some extent, to a significant extent, with the real problems that were created as a result of the deregulation mania that swept through this House and the other House as well beginning in 1995. So let us pass it but let us not kid ourselves. This was created here. It needs to be corrected here and the job is not yet done.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, beginning in 1995, this Congress began a process of reducing regulations and freeing up the activities of corporations across America. They also, during the beginning of that period of time, weakened the IRS. The result of that is the kind of corporate scandals, the kind of corporate crime wave we see sweeping across the country today. One of the less noticed aspects of that corporate crime wave includes the way in which corporations have been robbing the pension systems of American workers. They have been doing that by shifting from a so- called defined benefit program, where the benefits are clear and well stated, to a cash balance program, which enables them to manipulate the pension program and, in fact, provide lesser benefits to the employees, to the workers, over periods of time as they retire. That has got to stop. The only way it can be stopped is by requiring the IRS, which has been weakened by the leadership of this House, to step forward and enforce the laws as they were intended to be enforced. That is what this amendment would do. It would require the IRS to enforce the laws, and it would stop the pension abuse that is going on by corporations across this country that are costing American workers and their families hundreds of millions of dollars. We have the obligation and the responsibility to stop it. The only way we can stop it is by passing this amendment. Therefore, I hope and trust that the majority of the people in this House will step forward and recognize their responsibilities and pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Moran for their diligent work in putting together the FY03 Legislative Appropriations bill. I am particularly pleased that the Committee Report for this bill calls for a study by the Librarian of Congress to determine the feasibility of establishing a Ukrainian Leadership Program (ULP). The ULP would target young Ukrainian leaders from local and regional governments and give them the opportunity to travel to the United States and meet with federal officials in Washington. The Ukrainian officials would also travel to various congressional districts and meet with local officials. While in local communities, these young leaders would meet with farmers, bankers, educators, and business people. In these meetings, the Ukrainians will be able to observe the critical functions that these groups serve in a democracy. The Ukrainian American community will be actively involved in its implementation and providing logistical support thus reducing the cost to the U.S. government. The ULP will provide the next generation of local leaders with a better understanding of the relationships between the federal and local governments and the constituencies they represent. These young officials would be able to return to Ukraine with greater knowledge of the inner workings of democracy. This knowledge is critical to implementing further democratic reforms in Ukraine. Ukraine is at a crossroads. While it has taken great strides towards democracy since its independence in 1991, reforms have slowed over the last few years. As the sixth most populous nation in Europe, the Ukrainian people are people eager for reform. The U.S. can help ensure that democratic reforms are successful by supporting Ukraine's young leaders. This bill takes a significant step towards the realization of the ULP. We all recognize the large task of establishing such a program. With this study in hand, Congress will have road map with which to move forward on this issue. The ULP has the support the Ukrainian American community and the young leaders in Ukraine. This step that the Committee has taken is appreciated around the world. Again, I'd like to thank Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Moran for their hard work on this issue. I look forward to the report and working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the most egregious acts of the 20th century--the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This Saturday, July 20, will mark the 28th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus and the 28th year of Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus. On July 20, 1974, 30,000 Turkish troops invaded northern Cyprus in flagrant violation of international law. More than 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forcibly expelled from their homes and nearly 5000 were killed. The fates of more than 1400 Greek Cypriots missing since the occupation remain uncertain. This tragedy is remembered by Greek Cypriots around he world as one of the blackest days in their people's history. I share the outrage of my Greek Cypriot friends and firmly believe Turkey must withdraw its troops from Cyprus and allow reunification to take place. Unfortunately, Turkey has continued to pour salt on this deep wound. In 1983, again in flagrant violation of international law, Turkey unilaterally declared independence in the area of Cyprus under its military occupation. The UN Security Council, including the United States, condemned this declaration and called for Turkey's withdrawal. To date, Turkey is the only country in the world to recognize the so- called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' Turkey has also attempted to change the demographic structure of occupied Cyprus by transferring 115,000 Turkish settlers to northern Cyprus and allowing them to live in the homes of expelled Greek Cypriots. Despite the occupation, Cyprus has achieved remarkable economic growth. It's people enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living and Cyprus is now a leading candidate for membership in the European Union. It is also a thriving democracy that maintains the highest regard for the rule of law and human rights. In recent months, Turkey has issued threats in response to Cyprus' prospective EU entry. Most worrisome is Turkey's threat to annex the occupied areas of Cyprus. The world must not sit still for such dangerous saber rattling. Fortunately, it has not. The EU has stated that it will not be held hostage to such threats and Cyprus' movement toward EU membership continues. The U.S. has also stated emphatically that it opposes Turkish annexation and believes such threats are destabilizing. Unfortunately, Turkey has not backed off its threats and continues to take positions that fly in the face of the world community's aspirations for peace. The U.N. Security Council has proposed a peace agreement that would create a single state with two politically equal communities in a bi- zonal and bi-communal federation. The Turkish Cypriot side, backed by Ankara, has rejected this internationally supported proposal. Cyprus supports this proposal and, notwithstanding Turkish opposition, it continues to make overtures in an attempt to resolve this longstanding conflict. The U.S. has supported Cyprus' peace aims but we must do more to press Turkey to allow peace negotiations to move forward. Cyprus has been a reliable U.S. ally since its independence from Britain in 1960. Our countries share deep commitments to democracy, human rights, free markets and equal justice under law. Following September 11, Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides immediately condemned the terrorist attacks and offered his country's assistance in our efforts to fight terrorism. This Saturday, at 5:30 a.m., sirens will be sounded across Cyprus to remember the moment when Turkish troops invaded their homeland. I urge my colleagues to take a moment this weekend to recognize the enormous injustice that has persisted in Cyprus at the hands of our NATO ally Turkey. The U.S. must do all it can to end this conflict and restore the right to live in a unified Cyprus for all Greek Cypriots.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. All of the civilizations throughout history which we want our children to study and which we admire, every one of them subsidized the arts at the national level. We should do no less. If we have any respect for ourselves and respect for our place in history, we ought to have an understanding of the importance of art in the development of our culture and the expression of ourselves as a people around the world. A gentleman recently on that side of the aisle said that there was art here in the United States prior to the National Endowment for the Arts. To an extent, that is true. But that art was limited. It was limited to the elites, to small groups of the wealthiest and best situated people. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities brings the humanities and the arts to people all across this country. The funding that is in this bill and that which would be increased by this amendment goes out to virtually every congressional district across America, thereby benefiting the people, in elementary schools, in secondary schools, and communities all across this Nation. Finally, if this amendment is passed, the amount of money that it adds to this bill will still not bring us to the level of support that the arts and humanities enjoyed in 1993-1994. We need to pass this amendment. We need to express ourselves as a people in this positive way. We need to show Americans across this country that we appreciate arts, the arts and artists, and show people around the world that we are a human country and appreciate and expound this great expression of ourselves as a people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good Interior appropriations bill; but the problem is that the rule failed to protect two very important provisions of the bill that were put in there by the Subcommittee on the Interior and endorsed by the full Committee on Appropriations on a bipartisan basis. These two provisions are critical to protecting a program to restore the natural system of the Florida Everglades. This restoration project is costing the people of the United States literally billions of dollars. It is the most comprehensive and ambitious environmental restoration project perhaps in the history of our world, certainly our country. What happens is that one of the provisions that is not protected by the rule would ensure that the Department of the Interior is made a full partner with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida in determining how this restoration project goes forward, and that science is used to make sure that the project is carried out in a way that achieves its objectives. Without the Department of Interior as a coequal partner, we are not going to get the kind of results that we want here. If the Department of Interior is required to play a subsidiary rule, as this rule would require, then the outcome is going to be less than what we want and money will be sorely wasted. The other provision that the rule fails to protect is a provision with the way the water would flow, north to south and south to north. Right now the Tamiami Trail which runs east and west across southern Florida blocks the flow of that water. A provision in the appropriations bill, again put in there by the members of the Subcommittee on Interior and endorsed by the full committee on a bipartisan basis, would ensure that a provision which the Congress previously authorized, the purchase of land to make sure that the Tamiami Trail can be raised and the water can flow naturally back and forth, north and south through the Everglades and into Florida Bay, that provision is not protected. These two essential ingredients of the Florida Everglades Restoration Plan, costing the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars, are not protected in this bill. That is why the rule should be defeated. Some Members might say we are legislating on an authorization bill. That is nonsense. These provisions ensure that what the Committee on Appropriations does, which authorizes money to be spent, that that money is going to be spent properly, cleanly, honestly, scientifically, so that we get the results that we want and need in this restoration project. Politics and not science is going to rule the day if this rule goes forward. That is the problem with this rule, and that is why it should be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to add my thoughts to those that were just expressed on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). It has been a great pleasure for me as a member of the Committee on Appropriations to serve under the chairmanship of Joe Skeen, first as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, and then second as the Subcommittee on the Interior. As I have said before on this floor, I have never met a more affable man than Joe Skeen. He is a delightful person and an absolute pleasure to work with. I am going to miss him very, very much. I also want to say that I strongly support the interior appropriations bill before us today and congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and their staffs for crafting this bipartisan bill that will help protect our natural and culture treasures. This is dramatic improvement over the administration's proposal. The administration's budget played a shell game with conservation, cutting funds from many important Federal accounts to make up an illusionary increase in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The President's request would have gutted programs protecting urban parks, wetlands, heritage and cultural preservation, water quality and forest research. I am grateful that our subcommittee rejected the administration's approach which would have prioritized resource exploitation over preservation, would have gutted the Federal Government's ability to protect and acquire nationally-significant lands, and would have abrogated the Federal responsibility to manage Federal lands by turning this responsibility over to private interests. I am pleased that the Chairman's mark honors our commitment to conservation spending by providing the full $1.44 billion for the historic conservation programs established by this subcommittee 2 years ago, an increase of $117 billion or 9 percent over the current level. This program includes important funds for Federal land acquisition, urban and historic preservation, wetlands protection and State wildlife grants. I applaud the Chairman's efforts on behalf of our national parks. The bill before us today takes a step in the right direction to address the significant funding shortfalls facing our national parks, increasing the operating budget of the parks by $21 million above the administration's request. The bill restores cuts that were proposed to the Park Service's national heritage service area, and it fully restores the $30 million urban parks conservation fund which helps local communities meet urban recreation needs. The bill provides some much-needed direction to the Smithsonian related to executive pay and corporate contributions. In fiscal year 2001, 70 percent of the Smithsonian's budget came from appropriated funds from this Congress. Only 5 percent of the Smithsonian's funding came from corporations. Unfortunately, while corporations are the smallest source of funding, for a price the Smithsonian is letting the corporations associate their names with this revered institution, and increasingly to have an influence on what displays are promoted. I urge the regents of the Smithsonian to reconsider this decision, as directed by the report, and correct their error. Finally, Mr. Chairman, again to congratulate Joe Skeen on his service as chairman of this subcommittee, on his service on the Committee on Appropriations, on his service to the State of New Mexico and to the United States of America. It has been a great pleasure to serve with this gentleman.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I regret that a pressing family matter yesterday forced me to miss recorded vote numbers 296, 297, and 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act, and H.R. 4755, the Clarence Miller Post Office Building Designation Act. I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act.