Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I point out to Members that yes, it is true that we are facing budget deficits once again. But the reason we are facing these budget deficits is not because of the incremental increases in some of these budgets, and as was just pointed out by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), the increase in this particular budget is not a budget-breaker at all, it is quite modest. The problem that we have is last year this Congress passed a tax cut which was way out of line. That tax cut is what is causing us to have these enormous budget deficits. Members do not want to admit that is the problem, but that is at the very root of any financial difficulty we have, and the reason why we are facing substantial budget deficits today and into the future.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate my constituent Allegra Guarino, New York's recent winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Voice of Democracy Scholarship Contest. This very talented young writer from Marlboro, New York has written an essay entitled ``Reaching Out to America's Future'' that bears reading and reflection by all of us. I am very proud to represent her in Congress, and I'm sure that her family and friends are very proud of her accomplishment. I am certain that she has a very bright future and will go on to do great things for her community and our nation. We need more young people like her. Reaching Out to America's Future (By Allegra Guarino)- When I hear the phrase . . . ``reaching out to America's future'' . . . I think of an outreach trip that I took this summer to Harlan County, Kentucky. Harlan County is one of-- if not the poorest counties in America. The people here don't have running water, some of them don't have electricity, and what is even more shocking is that some of them don't have a sewage system. They live in hills of the Appalachian Mountains in conditions that many people wouldn't dream exist in our great country. One of the volunteers on the trip found a beautiful stone on the ground and gave it to a little girl that he met. He told her that it was a dream stone, and that if she held onto it when she was dreaming of the future, it would hold inside of it all of her hopes and her dreams. The six-year-old girl looked up at him with questioning eyes and said, ``But I don't know how to hope and dream.'' How do you teach a child to dream? Most people don't have to be taught. Because they are lucky enough to live in part of our country where the reach of their dreams has no limitations. Another child I met in Kentucky is named Bailey. She is a four-year-old that loves to play on the swing set, so on the third day of the trip I decided to teach her how to butterfly swing. I sat down on the swing and placed her on my lap so that she was facing me. I kicked off from the rocky soil and we began swinging. I told her to be sure and watch the shadow that we were casting on the ground. I watched her eyes light up as she saw the butterfly shaped shadow on the ground. As we pulled away from each other and then back towards each other the shadow was an image of a butterfly flapping its wings. I told her that she might not be able to fly like the butterfly but she could do lots of great things in her life. She thought about the butterfly and what I had said and then she looked at me with these big blue eyes and said you can be the wings. I know that she didn't mean it as deeply as I took it. She was probably only referring to the shadow that we were making on the ground. But to me it meant something more. Today our country is at war and once again many brave people have gone off to fight in defense of freedom. They are truly the wings of the butterfly. Just as I picked up Bailey and placed her safely on my lap the troops fighting now, and the troops that have fought for us in the past picked up America, and started to fly. In order to start us swinging I had to push hard off the rocky ground. The American soldiers don't have an easy task ahead of them. We are just now, just kicking off of the rocky ground. But I have no doubt that we will fly. A butterfly has two wings. Each equally important. The soldiers will no doubt put 110% into flying our country to the freedom of the open skies. But we the American people must put equally as much effort into flying the country higher. All of us as a team must reach out to America's future. Without knowing us people have laid down their lives so that we would be able to enjoy the freedoms that are now being threatened. America too has a dream stone. Only it comes in a different form. It is tri-colored in red, white, and blue. Red for the blood shed yesterday, White for the pure freedoms we enjoy today and Blue for the endless clear skies of tomorrow. Our flag is our dream stone holding inside of it the very hopes and dreams of our Nation. We held tightly to it as it was proudly carried through World War One, World War Two, Desert Storm, Vietnam and Korea. While we were enjoying a time of great prosperity we tucked our stone away in our pocket. On September 11th we pulled it out of our pockets when firefighters proudly raised it high at ground zero, athletes displayed it on their jerseys, and average Americans flew it from their cars and homes. My generation knows how to dream. Will the generation after us be able to say the same? We must reach out and place the knowledge of the past into the hands of the future. When we empower the future generations with knowledge our country is sure to thrive. It is estimated that over one million men and women have died in service to our great country. Let us, America's present, take pride in our history and reach out to the future by passing along our knowledge and our great American dream stone. Because without a doubt America's future is whatever America dreams it to be.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate my constituent and dear friend, Jean-Jacques Carquillat, on the occasion of his attainment of United States citizenship. Mr. Carquillat is a valued and well-respected member of our community, and I am proud to welcome him as a full citizen to the 26th Congressional District of New York State. I became acquainted with Jean-Jacques, as well as his family, through his businesses in the Uptown Historic District in Kingston, NY. In 1994, Jean-Jacques established Le Carnard Enchaine, a Zagat-rated, fine dining restaurant. He also started a dance club and special events catering business in 2000. The success of these businesses led to his more recent opening of Luke's Place, a gourmet restaurant, in the Town of Shandaken, named after his young son. I have witnessed the hard work, strong character and integrity that Jean-Jacques has brought to the projects he has undertaken. His businesses have had positive impacts on our local area, including creating jobs in the City of Kingston and enhancing the city's efforts to promote tourism in the historic district. Jean-Jacques has been an active member of the Uptown Kingston Business Association and received its Excellence Award for 1999. In addition, he has been a consistent and strong supporter of various local nonprofit community organizations. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join Jean-Jacques Carquillat's colleagues, friends and family in extending my congratulations on his naturalization. His personal and professional enthusiasm has made him a valuable asset to our community, and I am confident that he will continue to serve in the most admirable way both his community and our great nation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I, first of all, want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee as well as the ranking member for constructing a very good bill. There is no question that this is a very good piece of legislative work. Nevertheless, I rise here this afternoon to support this amendment because I think it makes a very constructive improvement to the legislation that we are currently considering. A week ago today, the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew the United States of America from the antiballistic missile treaty which had been in effect since 1972. This is a treaty which has stood the American people and the people of the world in good stead for 30 years. It has had the effect of reducing tensions, reducing the likelihood of a nuclear attack by any country; and it is a treaty that I think ought to continue to be in existence, but the administration withdrew us from that treaty so that they could begin the construction of these facilities in Alaska and elsewhere. In doing so, the allegation is, and we have just heard an exposition of that from the gentleman from Kansas just a moment ago, that all of this is designed to improve our security; but in fact, I think what we are seeing is the opposite is happening. As a result of our withdrawal from the ABM treaty, the Russian military is already talking and pressuring the leadership in Russia to put their missiles on higher alert. They are already discussing multiple, independently targeted reentry vehicles, in other words, MIRVing the system, putting more warheads on their missiles. In other words, the effect of the withdrawal from the treaty has already begun to increase tensions on both sides and putting the Russian nuclear missile system on a higher position of alert. What this amendment does is prevent the expenditure of $181-plus million for the construction of these silos. It is a very thoughtful and very prudent initiative, and it is one that we ought to follow. We ought to follow it because the expenditure of that money is premature; and if we do expend it and this construction goes forward, it is going to increase tensions additionally even further. We have also heard it expressed very, very clearly that the physics of this system has not been proved, not in any sense. The success that we heard about just a moment ago is a false success. It is a success that has demonstrated over and over again that in spite of the fact that we know where the launch is coming from, what time the launch is occurring, the trajectory of that launch, where the missile will be at a precise moment in time, in spite of that, the tests have failed over and other and over again. There has been some minimal success, but the preponderance has been failure. Such that, as we heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) a moment ago, Phillip Coyle, who is the former Pentagon chief investigator, said earlier this year in February that some aspects of this tall order are virtually impossible; and the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community agrees with that. Scientists over and over and over again studying the physics tell us that we have not tested this system enough to demonstrate that it is going to work; the physics of it are impossible. So what we are offered here today is an opportunity to improve this bill, reduce the expenditures by $181 million, and instead of increasing tensions and reducing national security, to improve national security by the adoption of this amendment. I support the amendment, and I hope that the House will do so as well.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to enter into this discussion. I was particularly interested in his remarks a few moments ago about the Nation's national parks. These national parks were set aside initially under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, that is when they first began, a very respected Republican President who was one of the most environmentally sensitive and far-seeing Presidents in our history. It is unfortunate that this present administration, another Republican President, has sought to degrade the national parks in the ways in which we have just heard. One of the most serious elements of that degradation has to do with air quality. The national parks were set aside initially in the first instance during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt; and when he initiated the first national parks, he talked about the need for Americans, for people, to have a quiet place, a place where they could go and be in touch with the natural elements and get back to a sense of real nature, a place that is pristine, quiet, a place for reflection and a place for us to understand our own relationships with the natural world. That was really the foundation for the national parks. I am paraphrasing the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, but that was one of the essential aspects of the message that he laid out when he first began to form our series of national parks. Under this administration, the degradation of air quality and also the proliferation of noise as a result of the extraordinary use of snowmobiles in the winter months is causing serious harm to the national parks themselves and, of course, to the natural setting and is absolutely destroying the sense of quiet, the sense where people can go to get a deeper understanding of the natural world and of themselves. And, of course, the effect on air quality by these snowmobiles is such that the air quality on the western end of Yellowstone, for example, at times is worse than it is, and this is frequently occurring, at frequent times, in major urban areas as a result of the burning of the fossil fuels to propel the snowmobiles. Of course, the parks are there for everyone. We all want an opportunity to enjoy them, and they are there for recreational use. But there needs to be a realization that one particular aspect of use cannot destroy the joy and the experience that other people have who want to use the national parks in other ways, for hiking, for cross- country skiing, things of that nature. So I am very distressed, along with everyone who has a deep care about our national treasures, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the other wonderful national parks that make up this unique array of park systems in our country and how it is being degraded and in some sense actually destroyed by the unlimited use of snowmobiles. I also noticed that earlier there was a discussion with regard to clean air. It also ought to be brought to people's attention how the administration's proposal, in effect gutting serious elements of the Clean Air Act, is having on air quality in many places around the country, not just on national parks but all across the country. The Clean Air Act has been one of the most effective tools to provide a cleaner and healthier environment for all Americans that we have seen in the history of the country. Over the course of now more than 30 years, since 1970, the effect of the Clean Air Act has been to reduce air pollution on average across the country by about 30 percent. That effect will continue. Except that the administration now has said that they are going to remove an important part of the Clean Air Act, known as new source review. I think that everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that a major source of air pollution in this country is the generation of electricity through the burning of fossil fuels and the fact that when the Clean Air Act went into effect, many of these old power plants were, in effect, grandfathered. In other words, they did not have to put on the modern cleaning technology which scrubs out the pollutants before they get into the air. But a provision of the Clean Air Act stipulated that whenever the owner of one of these power plants upgraded the plant in some way to increase the amount of electricity that was being produced or in some other significant way to gain some economic benefit, additional economic benefit from the plant, that at that point new source review kicks in and that the owner of the power plant would then have to install equipment to clean the air coming out of those plants. The administration is now eliminating new source review through the Environmental Protection Agency. That is going to have a debilitating effect on air quality in many places around the country but especially in the Northeast. In New York, for example, where the Adirondack Mountains suffer from the pollutants that come from these power plants in the form of acid precipitation, acid rain, snow, sleet, hail that falls on the growth in these mountains and also on the lakes, the effect of that has been to completely eliminate all life forms in more than 300 lakes and ponds in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. A similar effect is being experienced in Vermont, in New Hampshire, Maine and other places. So the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act, which has been an enormously successful instrument to provide a cleaner, healthier environment for Americans, is being subverted by this administration by the elimination of this provision known as new source review. This is important not just from an aesthetic point of view, not just from the point of view of all of us, I believe all of us who appreciate the quality of a natural environment, to go into a wooded area, to climb a mountain, to go into some back country and breathe the clean air, not only that loss and the loss of the life forms in those more than 300 lakes and ponds in the Adirondacks and similarly in other States, but by gutting the Clean Air Act in this way, by eliminating new source review, by putting more pollutants into the atmosphere, it also degrades the quality of our lives in a very material way. We will see increased incidence of asthma and other lung ailments as a result of the poor quality of air. It is, in fact, a genuine and real health problem. For all of these reasons, we are deeply concerned about the attitude that has been expressed by the majority of the Members in this House, particularly over the course of the last several years that they have been in the majority, and also the attitude that is apparently being expressed by the administration recently in removing new source review from the Clean Air Act and thereby causing substantial additional pollutants to go into the air and also by degrading the national parks by the unlimited, unregulated use of snowmobiles in those national parks. I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for setting aside this time for us, Mr. Speaker, so that we could have the opportunity to discuss in some detail these important environmental issues which are also important public health issues.

Mr. HINCHEY. Of course, what the gentleman from Oregon is pointing out here is an undermining, even an abrogation of the basic democratic system under which this Congress is supposed to function. This Congress is set up as a place where the issues that are of most importance and of deepest concern to the American people can be debated freely and openly. Certainly, this environmental issue in all of its aspects, its aesthetic aspects, its environmental quality aspects, its public health aspects, is an issue that ought to be debated fully. We ought not to be here in the evening, during the period of Special Orders, although it is a good thing to do, we really ought to have the opportunity to exchange these views with Members on the other side of the aisle, the Republican Party who is in charge of this House and sets the rules in this House. We ought to be able to engage them in substantive debate on these issues so that people can see the differences that exist between them and us, and so that they can then make a decision as to what kind of representation they want. The gentleman reminding us of the way in which basic democratic principles have been undermined here and the way the House is governed also points out to me the fact that the most important vote that we cast here at the beginning of each Congress every 2 years is the vote that establish the leadership of the House, because it is the leadership of the House that determines the agenda of the House and determines the way in which this House of Representatives is not just organized, but the way it conducts its business day in and day out. It is supposed to be done in an orderly and progressive way; but unfortunately, we have not seen that to be the rule here over the course of the last several years. So it would be much better if we had an opportunity to discuss the environmental issue, just as it would be much better if we had the opportunity to discuss the energy issue, which I know the gentleman touched on earlier this evening and the fact that our energy policy is one that is devoted almost entirely, almost exclusively, to exploitation of natural resources, and the burning of fossil fuels, rather than focusing, in part, on significant energy conservation and the production of energy through alternative means that are nonpolluting. That debate is one that we ought to have as well, because I believe the American people want us to develop an energy policy which is multifaceted, which is broad-based, which conserves our natural resources, and which improves the quality of the environment just as they want us to have an open and full environmental debate on these issues as well.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am sure if Teddy Roosevelt were President today, the approach to environmental issues would be much different. It is really a shame in a way, because we have had a number of Republican Presidents who developed and nurtured very sound policies with regard to the environment. If they were in office today, one of the first things that they would turn their attention to is probably the most serious environmental problem of all, most serious because it is global in nature, most serious because it has the potential to alter the environment in very basic and fundamental ways all around the Earth, and we are seeing the effects of that already. What I am speaking of, of course, is the phenomenon of global warming and the fact that so much of the warming that we have been experiencing in recent decades comes about as a result of the activities of our species on this planet, and it is the burning of fossil fuels and the placing in the atmosphere of these gases, particularly carbon dioxide. Last year was the second warmest year on record. Two years earlier, it was the warmest year on record. The decade of the 1990s was the warmest decade on record. The one before that was the decade of the 1980s. I mean it does not take a genius to see what is going on here. Not long ago, a part of the Arctic ice cap, the Antarctic Ice Sheet, in fact, dropped off, a size of the State of Rhode Island. That came about as a result of rising temperatures and the melting of the ice. There was an amazing story on the front page of the New York Times just about a week ago which talked about the effect of global warming in Alaska, how in one situation, an island which had been inhabited for a long, long time, I do not think anyone knows precisely how long, but very, very long, as being inundated because of the fact that the polar ice caps are melting and the sea level around the world is rising. An island such as this one in Alaska is being inundated and people are going to have to move off of that island to live somewhere else. Roads are buckling because of the warming in Alaska. That is happening because the permafrost is no longer perma. In other words, it is no longer permanent. The frost there is melting; and as a result of that, we are getting heaves of the Earth and the roads are buckling as a consequence of that. I think it was spoken of earlier that global warming is, in some measure, causing the dryness that is contributing to the fires that we are seeing around the country, and it is also contributing to the changes in weather patterns that we are experiencing, drier climates in some areas, and a whole host of things that are becoming more and more evident with each passing day, each passing week, month and year. Mr. Speaker, we need to do something about it. We need to focus our attention on it. Every other industrial country in the world is taking a responsible position on global warming, cutting back their emissions. This administration has decided to turn its back on the issue, and I can remember it was just a few years ago when in debating an Interior Appropriations, Republican members of that committee wanted to strike from the bill the phrase ``global warming'' because they contended that it did not exist, that it was fanciful and there was no point in having such a phrase in legislation because they contended it was a complete fix. Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that this level of ignorance exists, but there it is for everyone to see. This is a problem that we need to pay attention to.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, when the specific provisions contained in this bill as before us this morning first came before the House in the 106th Congress, there were only a handful of us who voted against it, in spite of the fact that the bill was enormously complex, incredibly detailed, and hardly anyone, other than staff members, had any real idea of what was in it. We voted against it because we thought that the bill would harm the retirement circumstances for the vast majority of Americans, while, at the same time, it would provide ways in which those who were in charge of the retirement systems in individual companies could manipulate those systems in ways that would benefit them specifically and injure the vast majority of their employees. When the bill came back last year, a larger number of people voted against it. It was contained in a larger bill. Why? Because I think people are beginning to realize very clearly what is going on here. The whole pension program in this country is under change; and in fact, the pensions of the vast majority of Americans are under assault. The previously popular defined benefit plans, which most corporations had for most of their employees, have now essentially gone out the window. We have flexible plans, plans that are undefined, plans that are not clear as to what the benefits will be. And the enormous amounts of money, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, in some cases billions, of dollars that are tied up in pension programs in various places and in corporations around the country are being manipulated by the corporate executives for their own advantage, for their retirement situation, for their golden parachutes, for their specific needs, to the detriment of the vast majority of employees. Now, what do we have in this bill that is before us this morning? In spite of the experience of the last several years, the Enrons, the Global Crossings, and on and on and on, in spite of all that experience recently, now we have a bill coming before us that would make permanent the most egregious provisions of the bill that was passed previously and does nothing whatsoever to make permanent the single provision in the original bill that benefited low-income, middle-income employees, the vast majority of people who work for these corporations. This bill is bad. We need to support the substitute and defeat the bill in chief.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Janice Strauss, teacher and child advocate, upon her retirement. Jan was born on December 17, 1946 in Pittsburgh, PA to Dorothy and Fred Little. The family moved to Niagara Falls, NY on June 6, 1952. Jan is the eldest of 5 children, Kathleen, Michael, Douglas and Nancy being her siblings. She taught herself to read at four years of age and taught her youngest sister, Nancy to read at four. Jan went to St. John delaSalle Catholic School until 8th grade, and then finished her public school education at Niagara Wheatfield Schools. She was an exchange student to Ecuador during the summer between her junior and senior years. This is when her love of Spanish and other cultures began to flourish. Jan went to Harpur College where she majored in Spanish and graduated in January 1968. It was at Harpur that she met her future husband Geoffrey. They were married on May 18, 1968 and they have two children, Micah and Alicia. Jan earned her Masters of Arts in Teaching Spanish at SUNY Binghamton in 1970 and is certified to teach Spanish. She is also a certified English As A Second Language Teacher. Jan is first and foremost a ``people person.'' When she was a senior in high school, she convinced her mother that they should take care of her maternal grandmother in their home. She also insisted in bringing her grandmother-in-law into her home rather than put her in a nursing home. When her daughter Micah was born, the lack of credible information about breastfeeding led her to enter into a rigorous training program to become a La Leche League Leader to help other nursing mothers. Over the years, she has welcomed numerous foreign exchange students into her home to enjoy and learn about their cultures and make them feel welcomed and loved in our country. As her children entered public school, wanting to increase the value and quality of the public school experience for children, she became involved in the PTA holding various offices on the local and regional levels. To advocate for the rights and dignity of children, residents and employees, she ran for and won a position on the Union-Endicott School Board. Next to being a mother, the ultimate example of her love of children and people is her teaching. She cares about each student, always striving to help each student succeed, even those students ``written off'' by others. She considers any student's lack of success a personal loss. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to salute Jan for her many years of distinguished services and devotion to our community. She has left a fine mark in the teaching profession and our community and I join her family, colleagues and friends in thanking her and wishing her all the best on her well-deserved retirement.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering has to do with section 1404, and it strikes subsection (b). Subsection (b) of the legislation, the bill that is before us, deals with the counties of Orange and Dutchess in New York. This amendment deems that these two counties are eligible for reimbursement under Medicare as if they were located in the metropolitan area of New York City. The effect of the language in the present bill would be to provide more funds to the hospitals in those two counties, Orange and Dutchess, but it would do so at the expense of hospitals in Putnam, in Westchester, in Rockland, and in the five boroughs of New York City itself. That would be a disservice to those counties adversely affected, so the amendment that I am offering would provide that the hospitals located in Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster counties would be deemed eligible for Medicare reimbursements as if they were located in the metropolitan area of New York City, but it will do so in a way that does not adversely affect the reimbursement rates for the hospitals of Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, or the five counties of the city of New York. So the amendment that I am offering is much fairer, much more equitable, and does not disadvantage those counties that I have mentioned. Why do we need to do this? We need to have amendments like this because of the fact that hospitals all across this country are adversely affected by the budget that was passed by this Congress earlier this year, and particularly by the tax cut which was put into effect by this Congress early last year. The effect of that $1.3 trillion tax cut not only has jeopardized our Social Security system, but is making it clear that as we move forward over the course of the next seven, eight, or nine years, more and more money will be taken out of the Social Security trust fund as a result of the tax cut which was forced through this House of Representatives early last year by the majority party. Not only will that happen, but also as a result of that tax cut, less money is available for Medicare reimbursement. So not only have we placed in jeopardy the Social Security of our senior citizens, but we have also placed in jeopardy the health care of our senior citizens by that tax cut, as well. So we see clearly the adverse effects of the $1.3 trillion tax cut, the majority of the benefits of which went to a tiny fraction of the wealthiest people in the country. In order to provide that benefit for the wealthiest people of this country, we are taking money out of the Social Security trust fund and we are also taking money out of the Medicare trust fund, so that our hospitals are disadvantaged in providing health care, not only for senior citizens, but essentially for everyone else who has recourse to use those hospitals. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the problem that has befallen hospitals across this country, and particularly those that are mentioned in the amendment, the adverse effect that has been visited upon these hospitals as a result of the $1.3 trillion Republican tax cut, the majority benefits of which went to the wealthiest people in the country. This amendment does so, helps those hospitals in those counties, without taking money from the hospitals in the adjacent counties of Putnam, Westchester, and Rockland and the five boroughs of New York City, as is done by the language in the bill that is before us. That is why this amendment is a great improvement over the language that exists in the instant bill.

Mr. HINCHEY. I wish to be heard on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I heard the gentleman from Florida a few moments ago talk about the importance of debate and democracy, and of course, that is very true. And of course that is very true. But the essence of democracy is the ability to vote, and we are being deprived of the ability to vote. That is what democracy is all about. Let us have some votes on some of these issues. I also want to take this opportunity to express my deep respect for the gentleman from Arizona. He is a true humanitarian. I have had an opportunity to observe that firsthand. But the policy that we are arguing about in this bill is contrary to that. We are in the process of getting ourselves into a very deep mess in Colombia. We have already gone too far. But now we are being asked to go even further. As we learned just a few moments ago from the gentleman from Massachusetts, Colombia's own contribution to its military is limited. It spends less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product on the military, and recruits with high school degrees are exempted from serving in combat. High inequality, gaping urban-rural divisions and government abandonment of poor populations underlie this decades-old conflict in Colombia. U.S. military aid, as we are being asked to provide now, is only going to make this problem worse, reinforcing the inequities that exist in Colombia between the educated and the noneducated, between the poor and the rich. There is already evidence that the United States aid has not made a dent in the drug war. In fact, things have worsened recently. Coca production rose by 25 percent last year. Killings of civilians rose from 14 per day in 1999 to 20 per day in 2002; 300,000 civilians were forcibly displaced last year. Most recently, on May 2, 117 innocent civilians were killed in the crossfire of the FARC and the United Self- Defense Forces, the AUC. While seeking safety in a church, these people were slaughtered. The Colombian military did nothing to ensure their safety, in spite of numerous calls for help. According to human rights groups, 85 percent of Colombia's political killings and so-called disappearances and 76 percent of all civilian massacres were committed by the illegal paramilitary groups like the United Self-Defense Forces, which has extensive links with the Colombian military. Despite this, since 1997, 80 percent of U.S. aid to Colombia has been given to the military forces. It makes absolutely no sense to send aid to a military that works with a terrorist group. If we are really interested in helping Colombia, we should support its civil institutions and effectively implement alternative development programs to support the rural communities which are most adversely affected by the war. We must continue to provide humanitarian aid to internally displaced persons, especially the Afro- Colombian community. We must demand the Colombian military break ties with the paramilitaries. We must also recognize that our counternarcotics efforts in Colombia have failed to curb domestic drug abuse here in the United States. Instead of aiding and abetting a civil war, we should be spending more money at home on drug treatment and prevention programs to reduce the demand for drugs here in the United States. It is by dealing with the demand side of this problem that we will reach a solution to it. We are never going to reach a solution by focusing all of our attention and energies only on the supply side. Administration after administration has failed in that regard. Let us not allow U.S. forces to be deployed anywhere in the world under this undefined global war on terrorism. We are being asked over and over again to provide military aid and assistance, to send our troops to places far away, dispersed in the so-called war on terrorism, a war that has not been defined by the administration. We do not know who the enemy is precisely. We do not know who we are fighting. Nevertheless, we are asked to spends billions of dollars on this ill defined, unclear, vague war on terrorism and send our military people out there to do the fighting. It is a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this McGovern-Skelton amendment before we send more money to known human rights violators and become enmeshed even more deeply in a brutal civil war on the side of the oppressors and against the oppressed.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in New York on May 20, 2002, and missed roll call votes 171, 172, and 173. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call 171, ``aye'' on roll call 172, and ``aye'' on roll call 173.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), our chairman, and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member, for fabricating this bill and bringing it to the floor here so that we all have an opportunity to support authorizing $1 billion of support for humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan in January of this year. At that time I had an opportunity to meet with Hamid Karzai and members of his cabinet, also with many of the people in that country, our new charge d'affaires there, the men and women of the 10th Mountain Division who are stationed there in that country and on its perimeter. In our conversations with Hamid Karzai, I asked him what was most important to him. Without hesitation or equivocation he said security. He then said we need to rebuild our educational system; we need to refashion our transportation system; we need to rebuild our agriculture, which is the foundation of their economy. But none of that will be done unless we are able to maintain security. The authorization that is contained in this bill provides the means for us to begin to do that in a meaningful way. We are going to have to stay involved in Afghanistan and committed and helpful to those people for some time in the future. I hope we have the staying power to do it, and I hope that this legislation which is here before us this afternoon will provide for us the solid foundation from which we can proceed on into the future. The security of Afghanistan is critical to the people of that country, to the establishment of a new democratic government, as well as to the security of ourselves and other freedom-loving peoples in other parts of the world. We need to do this today. We need to remain involved with this new government that is developing there, and we need to continue to carry the people of Afghanistan in our hearts and in our purses.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to the Very Rev. Protopresbyter Stephen Dutke in celebration of his 60th anniversary of the Ordination to the Holy Priesthood. I am pleased to congratulate Father Dutke for his 60 years of distinguished service. Father Dutke was born on January 3, 1917 in Nesquehoning, Pa, the son of Damian and Susan Dutke. He grew up in Elizabeth, NJ and graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School and Union Junior College in Cranford, NJ. He studied theology at the Diocesan Seminary of Christ the Saviour Seminary graduating in 1942. He married Mary Dzuback of Bayonne on May 3, 1942 and was ordained as an Orthodox priest by Bishop Orestes on May 10, 1942. Father Dutke organized St. Mary's Church in Buffalo, NY serving as its first pastor. He also served as pastor to St. Michael's Church in Freeland, PA from November of 1947 to August of 1961, where he oversaw the construction of the new rectory, the decorating of the church and the construction of the parish recreation center in 1959. He was assigned to St. Michael's Church in Binghamton, NY in August of 1961, where he served as pastor until July of 1991 and continues to serve as pastor emeritus. At St. Michael's, he spearheaded a $200,000 renovation project of the church for its 60th anniversary in 1964 as well as the creation of classrooms and a library for the Church School program at the recreation center. Throughout his pastorate, he distinguished himself by his selfless ministry to those who are ill and afflicted at home, local hospitals and nursing homes. He fostered 12 vocations to the Holy Priesthood including four men from Freeland and eight from Binghamton. For more than three decades, he served as director of the annual Diocesan Altar Boys Retreat, encouraging many boys to strengthen their faith and service to the church, both as laypeople and priests. Father Dutke served as Director of the Diocesan Priests' Pension Plan, a member of the Diocesan Liturgical Music Commission, as a member of the Diocesan Consistory and Board of Trustees for more than 30 years. His All-Holiness Patriarch Dimitrious designated him as a Proto- Priest in 1966 and as a Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1989. Since his retirement in 1991, he has continued to assist at St. Michael's, serving one of the Sunday Liturgies, managing the annual Pirohi Project and continuing his pastoral work through visiting the sick at hospitals and nursing homes. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to salute Father Dutke for his many years of distinguished service to our community. It is my pleasure to join Father Dutke's friends, family and congregation in extending my deepest appreciation for his outstanding service.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in spite of the best attempts of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), this bill has become a political grab bag of extraneous material that has nothing to do with defense authorization and has no place in this bill. I have time to cite just one example. Article 14 is a provision which contains language that is destructive to our efforts to protect the environment in this country, particularly issues that are destructive to the 1964 Wilderness Act. That language undermines the issue of wilderness as it is practiced by the Federal Government in areas all across the country. It is a special provision. It is even a personal provision. It has no business in this bill. Furthermore, we were not given the opportunities to present amendments which could give the House the opportunity to debate this issue and to strike these unwarranted and destructive provisions from the bill. That makes this bill unworthy of the House. It ought to be withdrawn. We ought to have an opportunity to debate this issue and those things ought to be brought before us.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance to mark one of the most horrific tragedies of the 20th century, the Armenian Genocide. On this date in 1915, leaders of the Ottoman Empire began murdering thousands of Armenian people. By 1923, the number of Armenians murdered was over 1.5 million. In spite of irrefutable evidence, the United States of America and the Republic of Turkey have consistently refused to officially acknowledge that the Armenians were victims of genocide. The Armenian Genocide is a historical event that cannot be denied or forgotten. It is vital for Turkey to accept recognition of this tragedy taking place on its soil. Turkey must follow the example of Germany in its swift commendation and acknowledgement of the Holocaust. In 2000 the European Parliament officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. The following year the French Parliament recognized it as well. Many attempts have also been made by the U.S. Congress to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. These attempts, however, have been scuttled by successive administrations for fear of disrupting our strategic relationship with Turkey. While I certainly value Turkey's friendship, as a world leader, the U.S. must officially acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Not doing so sets an extremely poor example for the rest of the world and denies the victims of this horrific tragedy the proper reverence they deserve. Armenia was quick to respond to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and to offer their condolences and support. With Armenia offering its support and sharing in our grievances, it is unimaginable that we would deny them the same sympathies. The Armenian people deserve official recognition by the United States for the tragic genocide that was inflicted on their people during Ottoman rule, as well as, U.S. efforts to encourage Turkey to also officially recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained en route to the Capitol this afternoon. I would like the Record to reflect that had I arrived here in a more timely fashion and had an opportunity to vote on the motion to instruct conferees with regard to the Cuba issue, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Hidy Ochiai as he receives the Endicott, New York SERTOMA Club's 2002 Service to Mankind Award. I commend the SERTOMA Club on its choice of Mr. Ochiai as the recipient of this award. Mr. Ochiai began his martial arts training in Tokyo, Japan at the age of six, taught by his father. In 1966 he received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Albright College and opened his first school of Washin-ryu Karate in Broome County, New York. He now has a total of 25 branch schools servicing the public. Mr. Ochiai established a karate program as part of a physical education curriculum which, in 1969, was implemented by Broome Community College. Mr. Ochiai has successfully competed in many tournaments, including his first national tournament in 1970 where he won the kata title at the U.S.K.A. Grand Nationals. Mr. Ochiai has an outstanding record of community service in Broome County and, including the establishment of the Education Karate Program (EKP). More than 30,000 students have completed the EKP, earning Mr. Ochiai the Distinguished Alumnus Award from Albright College for its development. In addition to his work through the EKP, he has written five books. It is my pleasure to join Hidy Ochiai's colleagues, friends and family in extending my deepest appreciation for his outstanding community service. His personal and professional enthusiasm has made him a valuable asset to our community, and we thank him for his service.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Republic of Tunisia and its people on the 46th anniversary of their National Day of Independence. Over the last 46 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 Sea. 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. Tunisia's unwavering opposition to terrorism has been 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. As a friend of Tunisia, I again congratulate the Tunisian people on 46 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 Moslem 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. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said a couple of minutes ago that we had no plan, but we do have a plan. It is a very simple one. The plan is to defeat this budget resolution which is oppressing the American people and bring to the floor of this House a budget resolution that makes sense; one that does not do what this budget resolution does, which is to invade the Social Security trust fund every year over the course of the next decade. A decade from now under this plan the Social Security trust fund will have $1.5 trillion less than it has today because this budget resolution invades the social security trust fund every year over the course of the next decade. This year it spends every dime of the surplus in the Medicare budget. So our principal objection to this budget, first of all, is it does not play straight. It does not play fair. It is not honest with the numbers. And it jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare at a time when we are going to be calling upon those programs because of the larger numbers of retirees that are coming into play. Furthermore, this budget resolution does not live up to its promises. It takes money out of education. We promised money to the State for increased education funding. It does not deliver on that. And it makes virtually impossible a prescription drug program for the elderly. All of that so it can continue the ruse, the farce, that we can afford the $1.7 trillion tax cut which you rammed through this Congress last year. The money just is not there. And you want to continue to pay for that tax cut and the only way that you can do it is by borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund, $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and taking all of the surplus out of Medicare, and by failing to deliver on the promises of health care and education which you have made. That is our plan: get a real budget on this floor.