Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to join with my colleagues in sponsoring this House Resolution to recognize the United States Military Academy on its bicentennial. This venerable institution was chartered by Congress 200 years ago on March 16, shortly after the birth of the Nation. Known most commonly by the name of the town where it is located, West Point, New York, the United States Military Academy was born out of the experience of our Founding Fathers during the Revolutionary War. Many of the key battles in the fight for independence were fought along the banks of the Hudson River. At the time, the Hudson was the main artery of transportation and commerce as well as security in the Nation. George Washington chose a site at the bend in the river on the bluffs overlooking the west bank about 50 miles north of New York City to establish an academy to train the military leaders of our country. Today, the view from West Point is one of the most breathtaking sites in America. Two hundred years ago, it was one of the most militarily strategic locations in America. I grew up near West Point, near its halls. It is an important part of the Hudson valley, and the contributions that it makes are mighty to all of our communities. It is more than just West Point football games in the fall. It is also the academy support for local cultural institutions, schools, and athletic programs that make it such a fine neighbor. ``Duty, honor, country,'' the school's motto, is the foundation of West Point education. West Point graduates have served our country with distinction. They have led our troops into battle in every war, military conflict, and police action, from the war in 1812 through the current conflict in Afghanistan. Seventy-four have won a Congressional Medal of Honor. Countless others have received numerous decorations for bravery and valor on the battlefield. More than waging war, West Point graduates have also negotiated peace treaties and served in our Diplomatic Corps. School of Engineering West Point graduates built the infrastructure of our Nation. They constructed the first harbors, bridges, canals, roads, and railroads. They made manifest destiny a reality as America expanded westward. West Point graduates have led our country as Presidents, Governors, Senators, Members of the House of Representatives. My colleague, the gentleman from Illinois and the sponsor of this resolution, is a fine example. West Point graduates have walked on the Moon, headed up major corporations, written best-sellers, competed in the Olympics, and excelled in every walk of life. Every year it produces more winners of Rhodes, Truman, Fulbright, and Marshall International scholarships than nearly every other school in the country. I am proud to serve this institution as one of the newest members of the Board of Visitors. As West Point celebrates its bicentennial, I look forward to helping lead it into the future. Again, I wish to thank the gentleman from Illinois for sponsoring this legislation and the leadership for placing it on the calendar today. This is a fitting tribute for an institution that has served our Nation long and well. I know that everyone in this House will support this resolution.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important telecommunications bill to come to the floor of this House not just in this Congress but in many, many years. If it passes and becomes law, it will determine the way the telecommunications industry develops in America for untold years to come. Yet we are provided with essentially 2 hours, or less than 2 hours to debate the bill in its essence on the floor here today. The opposition is given, what, 15 minutes to provide alternative points of view. This is scandalous. The people are not being served here. There ought to be opportunities to debate this bill in its full content and in detail. Why is that? Because the bill, as it is currently written, makes some terrible mistakes. The premise of the bill is that if monopoly situations are provided to monopolistic companies and get rid of all regulation at the Federal and State level that somehow we will have a fair and open process and a level playing field and that somehow consumers will get the benefit. History shows us different. This bill will cause prices to rise, and it will ensure that vast areas of the country continue to not get service. Particularly rural areas like upstate New York will not get the service that they need. The bill alleges to create jobs. Well, the CLECs in New York, for example, now employ about 100,000 people. Those jobs are in danger of being lost and almost certainly would be lost if this bill were to become law. This bill is not in the interest of the general public, not in the interest of consumers. We could do a good bill; and if we were doing a good bill, we would do many things. For example, we would ensure that every school in every State across this country is hooked up to broadband services, and those services would be required to be provided by the companies that are given this money-making opportunity contained in this bill. It is a big mistake. We could do an awful lot better.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on this side of the aisle who believes that the extension of a mere 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefit is a comprehensive response to the present recession, but we do understand that it is an important part of any response, and we do understand, as my colleagues do, it is the only thing that we can do practically at this moment. We have a bill here in this House which extends 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits. We could pass that bill now. But, Mr. Speaker, the majority side of the aisle will not put that bill on the floor. Instead, Members want to debate tax policy. We are happy to debate tax policy with the other side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle wants to pass a bill that will make it so that profitable corporations in America have no tax liability. They will pay no taxes to the Federal Treasury. Instead, that tax liability under the Republican proposal would inevitably be passed on to middle-income working people. If my colleagues want to debate those kinds of issues, bring that bill to the floor. We are happy to debate it, but for God's sake, let us do the one thing we can do today to help the people that need help. Every day 11,000 Americans exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits. We are leaving town today. The Speaker set the schedule. We are going on recess for 12 days. During that period of time, another 130,000 Americans will lose their unemployment insurance benefits. What are those Members saying to them? Nothing. The other side of the aisle is turning their back on them. Let us do the one thing that we can do now that has practical benefit: Pass the unemployment insurance extender.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle in recognizing the 91st birthday of former President Ronald Reagan and paying tribute to him. I particularly want to associate myself with the remarks which were made a few moments ago by the gentleman from Illinois. This is also an opportunity for us as we recognize former President Reagan to reflect for a few moments on his policies and to see if we can find within them some instructions for us in the present context. Having done so, I do find some instruction, and I think it could be helpful to the Members of the House as we approach some of the important issues which are before us today and for the rest of this 107th Congress. One of the first things that President Reagan did when he came into office was to offer a major tax cut, the effects of which were to cut taxes for the most affluent people in the country, the most financially successful people. He also proposed at the same time a very substantial increase in the military budget. We find ourselves at this moment facing a very similar situation: a President having proposed and succeeded in passing a massive tax cut last year, the primary benefits of which went to the richest people in the Nation, and also proposing a massive increase in military spending. Now, what were the effects of the Reagan economic policies, the tax cut and increase in military spending? In regard to taxes, the impact was to pass the tax-bearing responsibility in our country from the most affluent people to middle-income and lower-middle-income Americans. In other words, middle-income and lower-middle-income working people assumed a larger portion of the tax burden as a result of the initial Reagan tax cuts, some of which were changed and rescinded later on in the Reagan administration. Also the effect was to deny States of substantial amounts of revenue. States then passed taxing responsibilities on to the localities and increases in local property taxes occurred across America, in my State, New York, included along with many, many, if not all other States. We are about to see something very, very similar here as a result of the economic policies of the present administration. The effect of the tax cut which was passed by this Congress and signed into law by President Bush is having the same and will have increasingly that same impact. It will cause the tax responsibility and increasingly larger burdens to be borne by middle-income and lower-middle-income people as the wealthiest people are relieved of having to pay taxes. Furthermore, the effect of the tax cuts which were passed by this Congress last year are going to deny States of their ability to pay for the things that they need to do in order to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in those States, so we will see similarly responsibilities passed on to local governments and increases in local real property taxes. There is a very outstanding American philosopher named George Santayana, who once made the observation that those who fail to recognize the mistakes of the past will be doomed to repeat them. That admonition is particularly applicable to all of us in this Congress as we face these present economic conditions, a condition where we have gone from anticipated record budget surpluses at the Federal level to now anticipating substantial and increasing budget deficits. So as we pay tribute to President Reagan, let us also recognize the effect of the policies that he adopted in taxation and apply those lessons to our present condition today.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in traffic on Tuesday, January 29 while returning to the Capitol from my congressional district. This forced me to miss the vote on House Resolution 335, a resolution commending Catholic schools. Had I been present, I certainly would have voted for the bill. As a graduate of Catholic elementary school and one well aquainted with the many first-rate Catholic educational institutions in my congressional district, I would have been delighted to vote for a resolution that ``congratulates Catholic schools, students, parents and teachers across the nation for their ongoing contributions to education.'' I regret that I missed this opportunity to celebrate the merits of a Catholic education.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this so-called open rule is anything but. It is a sham. If it were truly open, it would allow us to debate an issue that is important for New Yorkers and Virginians and Pennsylvanians. We have a law that requires not less than $20 billion to be provided for those States as a result of the attack on September 11. This bill, in effect, negates that law. It takes that money away from the people who need it. This is especially true of the people in New York City which has been so devastated as a result of the attack on the 11th of September. Already, unemployment is up, businesses have been lost, health insurance has been lost. People are being denied the help and assistance that they need. There is a substantial amount of human suffering and a direct negative impact on the economy of the city. This money is drastically needed to cover those expenses. This rule makes it impossible for us to debate that amendment. Therefore, the rule ought to be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a couple of minutes to remind us about the extent of the devastation and the consequences of the devastation that occurred in New York. Currently, there are more than 5,000 people who are displaced from their homes in Manhattan as a result of the attack; 16 million square feet of office and hotel space has been destroyed; and 838 major companies have been dislocated as a result. More than 15,000 small businesses have been destroyed, dislocated or severely damaged. Over 108,000 people have lost their jobs. And the realistic estimate of economic damage to the metropolitan region area this year, $83 million. We are asking for this Congress and the executive branch to fulfill its commitment to the State and City for the basic minimum that was agreed to already in public law, for at least $20 billion to begin to meet the human needs. Now, we are told do not worry about it. We know that we agreed to $20 billion. You have only gotten half. The rest of it will be coming. But what happens to the people in the meantime? What happens to the unemployed? What happens to the widows and the orphans? What happens to the people who are injured? What happens to the people who have no health insurance? The answer to that question is virtually nothing will happen to them. They will continue to be unemployed. Their unemployment insurance will run out. They will continue not to have health insurance, and they will not get the health care that they need. They will continue to be disabled, and they will not get the attention to deal with those disabilities. These are the problems that are confronting the people of the city and the metropolitan region in the surrounding area. And the money that was supposed to come to the city, the other $10 billion was supposed to deal with these human consequences. And the fact is that the human consequences have gone unanswered, and they will continue to go unanswered so long as the State and city do not get what they have been promised by this Congress.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Edward M. Aswad, Photographer & Author, as he will be inducted in a star ceremony in the Binghamton Sidewalk of Fame. This recognition honors the professionalism, integrity, and artistic vision that Ed has demonstrated throughout his years in the photography business and his talent and success as an author. Ed calls his camera ``a passport to many facets of life.'' Ed received his first camera as a child living on Cypress Street in Binghamton, NY. Since that time his life has been entwined with photography. During military service from 1954 through 1958 he received intensive training and opportunities in the art of photography working in the headquarters of the United States Army Signal Corps. He earned recognition and promotions as a photographer/correspondent, recording events of military, government and civil importance. His work has been featured in military publications, court records, and civilian newspapers both in the United States and overseas. Ed received a letter of commendation for serving above and beyond the call of duty on a burning ship docked in Honolulu, Hawaii. He entered the hold of the ship with a cadre of firefighters who were removing vats of kerosene before the fuel could explode. He spent three days and two nights on the premises recording the crisis, and was cited for his dedication, professionalism and award-winning photographs. Upon discharge from the United States Army, he returned to the Triple Cities and began his professional career as an industrial photographer for General Electric in Johnson City. During eleven years with this company, Ed received numerous professional awards. In 1969, Ed became a partner in Carriage House Photography, where he expanded his reputation for technical and artistic abilities. His recording of buildings, now gone, and of the current use of these sites, his views of parks, rivers, events, and the people whose lives shape our area, have made his photographs synonymous with Broome County. His work is prized and featured in local businesses, the Broome County Chamber of Commerce, civil and government releases, and is in use as background sets on local television stations. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to salute Ed for his many years of devotion to the art of photography. Ed is a most deserving honoree of the Star.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding to me for an opportunity to make some comments about the present situation. I also want to express my appreciation and high regard for the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for the way in which he has led the committee this year and the fairness with which he has conducted its operations. But there are several important issues that are before the Congress now that many of us are fearful are not going to be dealt with appropriately, much less thoroughly. Therefore, I want to say, also, how much I support the amendment that was put forth by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to provide for the kind of domestic security which we now know we so desperately need as a result of the attacks that occurred on September 11 in New York, in Virginia, and the plane crash that occurred in Pennsylvania. Speakers before me have stipulated, I think, in precise and clear detail why this amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin has put forward is so important to secure the safety of Americans all over our country. And so the rule that comes forward should make in order that amendment. The Members of the House ought to have an opportunity to express themselves on the issue of the funding of domestic security. And that opportunity will not be afforded to them unless the rule makes in order the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment. The same can be said about the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). That amendment would add additional needs, or make them clearer in the appropriations bill with regard to our national defense; and that amendment ought to be made in order as well. Both of these amendments are based upon contingent emergency. In other words, the money would not be spent unless the President thought that it was necessary to do so. We are offering these amendments because we know that the House is going to be in recess for some period of time, and it may be necessary for the President to respond, both in terms of national defense abroad and in terms of domestic security here at home. And so the Murtha and Obey amendments are very important and ought to be made in order and ought to be debated on the floor of the House, and we need to have the rule that governs this issue when it is brought to the floor make these amendments in order. Also, very importantly, is an amendment that was offered on a bipartisan basis by the five members of the Committee on Appropriations who represent various congressional districts in the State and City of New York. As is true with the other two amendments, I think it is true of this one as well, that the chairman of our committee along with the ranking member support the ideas behind these amendments and the provisions within them. It is unfortunate that the chairman of our committee is working under very difficult and dire circumstances. Otherwise, we know that it would be routine for these amendments to be brought forward. But routine or no, these amendments should find their way to the floor. The amendment that we introduced as representatives of the State of New York also should have an opportunity to be heard on the floor and for the Members of this House of Representatives to express their will with regard to the disaster that struck New York City when the Twin Towers were attacked on September 11. I do not know of another time, at least in the modern history of our country, when the Committee on Appropriations has not responded to the request of Members for aid at a time of disaster. In almost every instance when we speak of disaster, we speak of natural disaster. We speak of the results of flood or hurricane or earthquake or fire or some other natural disaster. The Committee on Appropriations always responds. This House of Representatives always responds when disaster strikes anywhere in the country. The disaster that struck New York is the worst disaster in the history of the Nation. No, it is not natural, it is man-made. It was inflicted upon us by enemies from outside of the country. Nevertheless, we need to respond to the financial needs that are associated with the occurrence of that strike, that disaster. We thought that this had been done. Under the leadership of the chairman of our committee, our ranking member, the Speaker of this House and others, an agreement was made shortly following the attack of September 11 which would provide $40 billion; $20 billion of that $40 billion would go for national defense and home security, and the other $20 billion, it was made clear, would be made available to the City and State of New York as a result of the consequences of this incredible disaster that fell upon New York City. We thought that that deal was signed and secure. It was made, again, by the leadership in this House, the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations on a bipartisan basis with the President of the United States. And the President said, You shall have that money, State of New York, because we know you need it. But now we are told that it is not necessary to provide that money at this time. Only half of it has been made available to the City and State of New York because of that terrible strike. We plead with you to provide us with the remainder, with the remaining $10 billion, and we plead with you specifically for the individual people who were afflicted as a result of that disaster. Five thousand people almost were killed as a result of that strike. They left behind husbands, wives, children. Many people are without health insurance; many others have lost their jobs. We need to take care of the widows and orphans that have resulted as a consequence of that strike, and we need to make available to the people who have been placed out of work, tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs as a result of that strike, we need to make available to them health insurance through COBRA, Medicaid for those who were not eligible for COBRA, unemployment insurance and Workers' Compensation for those people who have been injured as a result of this strike. So these things, all of them, are necessary. These amendments are appropriate. They ought to be considered in the context of the bill. I hope and trust that when the Committee on Rules considers this issue, they will in fact make these amendments in order.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this Congress is becoming less and less relevant to the important concerns of people all across our country. Last month, a record number of Americans lost their jobs. Yet a program to stimulate the national economy is still hanging fire here while people try to profiteer by providing huge tax cuts for the wealthy while providing no help for people who are out of work. The same thing is true with airline security. We have a bill that has been in conference now for weeks. It is more than 2 months since the disaster struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet we have no program to provide security for the Americans who are traveling by air across our country and internationally. It is time this Congress got to work and produced airline security and a proper economic stimulation bill. These are the things that are of most concern to the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the FY 2002 Agriculture Appropriation conference report. On the whole, it is a very good bill, and I commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur and the entire Subcommittee staff and minority staff for their efforts. As good as it is, it does have several shortcoming that I will address in a minute. agricultural research I am pleased, however, at the level of support for agricultural research in this bill. Basic research is one of the best investments the government can make, but it's too easy for critics to poke fun at projects in this bill without ever considering the importance of the underlying research. USDA scientists and their collaborators at land grant universities work every day to ensure our food security, to preserve the competitiveness of American agriculture in a global economy, and to fight against bio-terrorism. I am proud to represent Cornell University, which is the recipient of many of these special research grants. By way of illustration, Cornell scientists are using USDA funds to investigate the causes and cures of fire blight, a disease that is infecting apple orchards across the country. In the five years of this research program, they have made progress in disease detection, development of biological controls, controlling the problems of antibiotic resistance, development of disease-resistant cultivars and rootstocks, plant nutrition, and chemical control. It will take at least another five years before we can evaluate the long-term success of preliminary findings. farmers markets The FY 2002 agriculture bill is also notable for its support of farmers market programs. Farmers markets are also one of the best investments we can make in American agriculture. Not only do they provide farmers with a direct market for their crops, but they also give city residents access to fresh, locally-grown produce. Many of the farmers in my district live within 100 miles of New York City and sell their produce in the dozens of markets throughout the City. Most of these markets would not exist if not for programs that allow low-income families to use their food stamp and WIC benefits at the markets. I am also pleased that the conference report funds the new senior farmers market coupon program for low-income elderly shoppers. I would like to point out one provision that is especially important to the farmers' market community in my state. The bill contains funds for a pilot program in New York to implement wireless handheld technology in the markets. This innovation is critical to the survival of farmers markets in low income communities, as food stamps and WIC benefits are increasingly delivered electronically through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. Because farmers markets operate outdoors with limited access to electricity or telephone lines, it is much more difficult for people to use their EBT cards in the markets. New York has been testing this technology on a limited basis with great success, and will be able to use these funds to expand the program into more markets across the State. It is my hope that this pilot will prove to be so successful that the Department will adopt it as a model for a nationwide wireless EBT program. rural broadband deployment Another provision in this bill will provide greatly needed assistance to help New York retain jobs and employers displaced by the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City. These events have created a massive need for the City and surrounding communities to replace millions of square feet of office space equipped with advanced telecommunications services including broadband service. The New York City metropolitan area is experiencing a huge demand for this type of office space, both for immediate relocation as well as for remote, redundant back-up locations. My colleagues in the New York Congressional delegation, the Mayor, and the Governor want to keep as many of these displaced jobs in New York as possible. We believe that the Rural Utilities Service telecommunications loan and grant programs have a key role to play in this effort. There are existing RUS broadband borrowers in the Hudson River Valley of New York who can help accommodate companies who are trying to resume normal business operations just outside of the city. This provision will make it possible for these borrowers to respond quickly to preserve New York jobs. We already know that New York will need to deploy additional broadband communications services rapidly to accommodate the increasing demand emerging in some of the rural areas in upstate New York. Connecting businesses, data facilities, and telecommuters to New York city are critical to recovery efforts. The conference report give the Administrator of RUS certain flexibilities and encouragement to expeditiously process loan applications from existing RUS broadband borrowers who are responding to recovery and rebuilding effort in New York. The measure is self-executing, needs no new regulation, and requires no additional funding. It provides needed regulatory flexibility so the RUS can work with qualified, existing borrowers to receive additional financing to respond to this crisis. It also allows the RUS to modify terms of a borrower's existing loan, in order to provide operational flexibility to better respond to this crisis. There are already several RUS borrowers in New York State. One, Hudson Valley DataNet, has already qualified for the broadband program and is providing broadband services in the Hudson Valley area, less than 100 miles north of New York City. This region of New York will be essential to the recovery effort for many companies seeking to restore operations, as well as companies seeking remote, secure, redundant data locations. Given the dramatic increase in demand for new deployment, however, the RUS needs this new authority to help: Carriers respond to the intense need to deploy services immediately for the recovery effort. These companies will need help to expedite their applications through RUS procedures, redefine terms of existing loans, and make adjustments to some of the existing program requirements to accommodate the recovery effort in New York State; Communities in the Hudson Valley, which are surrounded by rural areas that fall just above the 20,000-population limit for the broadband program that could benefit from some RUS process flexibility; RUS borrowers who wish to receive RUS financing to extend or acquire facilities into New York city for the express purpose of providing high capacity service connections into the Hudson Valley. These direct connections will provide a means for City-based companies to have broadband access to their secure redundant data site in the Hudson Valley. This measure will not have an adverse impact on other borrowers or future borrowers participating in RUS loan and grant programs. The language permits the Administrator to use some flexibility in handling applications related to the recovery effort in New York and expedite processing. Any project funded through this authority will be fully scrutinized for financial feasibility. Providing regulatory flexibility to the RUS to process applications related to the recovery effort in New York will help many companies and their employees resume normal operations and restore the areas's economy. apple market loss assistance As I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, there are parts of this bill that are not as great as the few I have highlighted. In particular, I am very disturbed that the conference report cuts the Apple Market Loss Assistance Program to $75 million, a 50 percent reduction from the House-passed bill. I worked very hard with my colleagues Jim Walsh and John Sweeney to include this provision in the House version of H.R. 2330. The Appropriations Committee approved $150 million for the Apple Market Loss Assistance Program by a very strong bipartisan vote, and the House passed it overwhelmingly. The U.S. apple industry is suffering serious financial hardship for the fifth straight year. Though the causes can be attributed to a variety of factors, the essence of the problem is low prices, compounded by bad weather and plant diseases. Between 1995 and 1998, U.S. apple prices fell precipitously, down 27 percent. In 1998, apple prices fell more than 20 percent in a single year, to their lowest point in over a decade. Prices never rebounded in 1999, and were hard hit again in 2000. During the last five years, the overall value of the U.S. apple production fell 25 percent--and losses from the 2000 crop alone are estimated to be nearly $500 million. A good share of the apple industry's trouble comes from the illegal dumping of apple juice concentrate by China, an issue that the U.S.TR has since addressed. Even so, increased tariffs have not made a significant improvement in the price of apple juice in the late year. In addition to low process, apple producers in New York and the northeast incurred ``quality losses''--reduction in sales prices resulting from severe hail damage to their crops. In Michigan, growers suffered a crippling epidemic of fire blight that destroyed thousands of acres of orchards. The newspapers have been full of reports of growers pulling up their orchards and selling prime farmland for real estate development because they can no longer make a living from apples. Our Apple Market Loss Assistance Program is a very modest lifeline to farmers who are barely hanging on. While I am very grateful for the $75 million, it is not nearly enough to combat the conditions I have described. The cut to the Apple Market Loss Assistance program is one more example of how U.S. agricultural policy shortchanges specialty crops at the expense of program crops. Most of the money delivered by U.S.DA this year is mandatory spending dictated by the authorizing committee, that we do not have the authority to touch. Not a dollar of those billions goes to specialty crop growers. The same is true for the additional billions that we pay in supplemental and emergency payments every year. I worked very hard with many of my colleagues to correct this imbalance earlier this year when the farm bill was on the floor. Unfortunately, our effort fell short by a few votes. It is my hope that the other body will pass a farm bill that evens out our priorities and results in a better deal for specialty crop growers in the end. Until that time, the greatly reduced Apple Market Loss Assistance Program is the only help we can offer our growers.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to express a couple of concerns that I have about this measure that is before us this afternoon. It has been said a number of times on the floor here today that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the most successful military alliance in history. I think that that is indisputable. It was created in the aftermath of the Second World War to deal with a set of geopolitical circumstances that presented themselves to the world at that time. Over the course of the succeeding 55 years, NATO has served Europe, the United States, Canada and indeed the world very, very well. It prevented a third world war. And ultimately it was NATO and other factors that resulted in a very definitive change within the Soviet Union. But now we are faced with a different set of circumstances. The geopolitical world in which we live today is in no way similar to that which confronted the West and other nations at the close of the Second World War. We ought not to be thinking about expanding an entity that was created for a different need and a different purpose at a different time. We ought to be thinking more about the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. And while one might argue that expanding NATO in the way that we have done recently and may do again in the context of this suggestion here, this proposal, might not do any harm, the fact of the matter is that at the very least it diminishes our likelihood to think of the world in different ways, and that is really what we ought to do. NATO served us. We ought to now begin to put it behind us and begin to think about the world we live in in ways in which are necessary to confront the circumstances that we have to deal with today. We ought not to be doing things, for example, that are insulting or might be taken as an insult by Russia, because they are now in a different relationship with the United States. So I am concerned about this for those reasons, but primarily because it will prevent us from thinking about the world in ways in which we ought to be thinking of it in order to address the different circumstances that confront us at this moment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, today, November 6, 2001, we remember one of the most horrific events the world has ever seen: the induced famine that was forced on the Ukrainian people by the Soviet government between 1932 and 1933. Ukrainians live all over the world now, but their homeland was under a non-conventional attack whose purpose was to eliminate the Ukrainian nation from existence. Seven million people were killed through starvation while a surplus of grain sat in warehouses. Despite the magnitude of this crisis, the Ukrainian Famine remains largely unknown outside the Ukrainian community. The truth has been hidden from us for far too long and now it must be brought to light. Under the reign of Josef Stalin, the Ukrainians resisted the unimaginable atrocities that befell them. After the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian independence movement toward the end of World War I, Stalin forced a famine on the ``breadbasket of Europe,'' Ukraine. One- fourth of its population was killed during this horrendous act of genocide. A reporter from the Manchester Guardian managed to slip inside the famine area and described it as, ``A scene of unimaginable suffering and starvation.'' He witnessed the terror and suffering that the people endured and attempted to show it to the world. Until 1986, the Soviet government did not admit to the man-induced famine. For two years people starved to death and the survivors were forced to eat rodents, eat the leather from shoes, and in extreme cases they were forced to eat the dead. The seven million deaths over two years was the highest rate of death caused by any single event, including any war that the Ukrainian people have ever fought. There is no precedent of such a hideous act in recorded history. Ukraine and the United States have witnessed human suffering and newly independent Ukraine is helping the United States during our time of mourning. Ukrainian Americans lost people in the attacks of September 11 who were as innocent as those that died in the famine. They will join together on November 17 at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York to commemorate the terrible acts perpetrated upon Ukrainians nearly three-quarters of a century ago. The survivors will always remember the past in order to prevent such suffering from occurring ever again.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the achievements and tremendous life work of a dear friend of mine, Mr. Alf Evers of Shady, New York. I have known Alf for more than thirty years, working with him on environmental and other issues in my district. Alf Evers is the pre-eminent historian of the Catskill Region of New York State whose writing and passion for storytelling have become part of the rich history of our area. As part of this year's New York History Month, I am proud to join in saluting Alf's significant contributions to furthering New York history. Spanning more than seven decades, Alf Evers' professional writing career continues today at age ninety-six as Alf completes a history of Kingston, New York. He is best known for his ambitious histories, ``The Catskills: From Wilderness to Woodstock'' and ``Woodstock: History of an American Town,'' as well as ``In Catskill Country: Collected Essays on Mountain History, Life and Lore.'' Mr. Evers authored more than fifty children's books, which were illustrated by his wife, Helen. These books helped bring his deep interest in ecology and nature to young people. Alf also served as associate editor of the New York Folklore Quarterly and wrote articles for the New York Conservationist. Over the years, Alf Evers' imagination and chronicling of the stories of the Catskills have inspired people to embrace a sense of place by bringing their history to life. An article from several years ago sums up the style of Alf's writings: ``Local histories fall into two categories: useful, but unreadable, chronicles of train arrivals and departures or dates of deeds; or stories that set a reader down in a place and transform them into residents. Evers' work is of the latter category.'' Alf's writing and scholarship have truly set a high standard of excellence for regional history, which he has made accessible to generations of readers through his skillful and well- researched narratives. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Alf for his tenacity and hard work in recording the stories of our past. I appreciate his commitment to landscape preservation, nature, and the arts. The wealth of knowledge that Alf has shared with readers and residents over many years has truly made him a national treasure, and I thank him for his great service.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion has been made that the idea of establishing dairy compacts is not germane to the agricultural bill, the farm bill that is presently on the floor of this House and being debated here. In order to believe that, we would have to be prepared to believe that the dairy industry is not part of American agriculture; that farm bills ought not to address themselves to the dairy industry; and that parts of the United States ought not to have the opportunity to participate, as they see fit, in the provisions of agricultural law made by this Congress. That, on its face, is an absurd notion. The dairy compact ought to be recognized in the context of this debate; and we ought to have an opportunity, all of us, to be heard on it, and there ought to be a vote on it on the floor this afternoon in the context of the debate on this bill. One of the escape hatches that the proponents of this theory have established for themselves is the idea that this ought to be taken up not in the context of agricultural policy but it ought to be taken up by the Committee on the Judiciary as a matter of law under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Well, some of us might be prepared to accept that if there was any possibility whatsoever that the Committee on the Judiciary in this House would address itself to this issue during the course of this Congress, but there has been no evidence presented anywhere that the Committee on the Judiciary has any interest in taking up this bill. So what the proponents of the agriculture bill and the proponents of this point of order would have us believe is, first of all, that dairy policy has no place in the farm bill; and that, secondly, they want us to believe the myth that the Committee on the Judiciary will take this issue up at some point in the future. Both of them are absurd. Both of them are false. Therefore, this point of order ought to be ruled against, and we ought to allow this amendment to be debated here on the floor this afternoon in the context of this 10-year agricultural bill.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman for producing this bill. I think the bill contains many good things. It reauthorizes the food stamp program, does a very good job on that; it provides a great deal of authorization for appropriate research in agriculture; and does many good things for the agricultural community across the country. However, there is one glaring problem with the underlying bill and the rule that governs it. The underlying bill makes inadequate provision for the dairy industry. Specifically, the inadequate provision is the failure of the bill to recognize the need for dairy compacts, particularly in the East and Southeastern parts of the United States where the dairy industry is in great peril. This rule does not provide the opportunity for a debate on that issue, and that is a major defect in the rule. Over and over again the leadership of this House has promised that there would be an opportunity to debate the issue of dairy compacts and that there would be an opportunity to have a vote one way or the other and allow the House to express its will on the issue of dairy compacts. This bill fails to do that and the rule fails to make in order such an amendment. This is a glaring deficiency. Why are we concerned about that? We are concerned about it because the dairy industry is an important part of the agricultural industry in this country. Without the opportunity for dairy compacts, a major portion of that dairy industry, that which exists principally in the eastern part of the country, both north and south, is in grave danger of perishing. If we lose the dairy industry, we lose an important part of our communities all across New England and the middle Atlantic States. So the rule should be corrected. A debate on the dairy compacts ought to be authorized. We ought to have an opportunity to discuss this very critical issue. Without that, the rule is grossly deficient.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House wants to be sure that we have a sound airline industry and that it is functioning properly for the American people. But this bill does not do enough in too many areas and in some areas, it does what it does in the wrong way. The bill, first of all, provides $5 billion in outright grants to the airline industry. The September 21 report of the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimates that because of the shutdown, the airline industry in the United States has lost between $360 million and $1 billion, and this bill gives them $5 billion in outright grants and another many billions of dollars and more in loan guarantees follow upon that. If we want people to get back into airlines, the way to do that is to increase the confidence of the American people in the airline industry. The way to do that is to put safety procedures in place, the kind of safety procedures that the airline industry has resisted for decades, since deregulation. These people who run these airlines are using the cover of crisis for financial gain, and that is what is happening in the context of this bill. No safety procedures, no increases in safety procedures, no additional confidence on the part of the American people. If we want people back in the airlines, we have to make them safe. Why are we not requiring the airlines to do the kinds of things that will produce confidence in the people who ride on these airlines? Where is that $5 billion going? What is it going to be used for when the airlines have only lost less than $1 billion as a result of the shutdown. Then, of course, there is the issue of the people who work for the airlines who are getting absolutely nothing out of this particular piece of legislation. Airline executives making between $5 million and $35 million a year, at a time when the economy has been at its best in modern history, at a time when more people are flying, have nevertheless been able to run several of these airline companies into the ground, and now we are rewarding them with additional billions of dollars.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for expediting this legislation and bringing it to the floor so quickly. As we all know, on Tuesday morning we witnessed the greatest assault on the Nation in our history. But since then, we have also seen examples of some of the greatest bravery and some of the most compassionate people that we have seen also in the history of our great country. With this legislation, we begin the process that we will be involved in as a Congress in participating in the healing that must take place both for the city of New York and for the people who live there. With this legislation, we recognize the great bravery and heroism that was displayed by the municipal officers of that city, police officers, fire officers, port authority policemen and others. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate, obviously, that we do so; and in this small way, with a small gesture, we provide some of the financial support that their families who were left behind justly deserve.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as the United Nations General Assembly prepares to convene on September 11, I believe it is appropriate to recognize the achievements of Taiwan. Over the past several years, Taiwan has established itself as a world economic power and a stable political presence in Asia. Since the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979, the United States and Taiwan have developed a strong friendship and understanding of each other. Most importantly, Taiwan is a thriving, multi-party democracy. Its leaders have successfully confronted the most difficult moment emerging democracies face: turning over offices to others when their own party loses. They have allowed open competition for office, and encouraged public discussion on the full range of issues that face Taiwan. It is clear that the people of Taiwan have the right to determine their nation's future. Unfortunately, at a time when Taiwan's example and its assistance could be most beneficial to the world community, it continues to be isolated from that community. Restoration of its membership to the United Nations would end that isolation. As new democracies emerge, I am convinced that the world could greatly benefit from the counsel of a nation that has recently transformed itself into a democracy.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my leader on the subcommittee for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the veterans health care budget submitted by the Bush Administration is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of our veterans across the country, but because of the computer formula known as VERA, veterans in New York and other States will suffer disproportionately. VERA and the inadequate funding levels in this bill will guarantee cuts in health care for many veterans across the country. While VERA purports to provide equitable health care in all regions, without question it has lowered the quality of care in many places. VERA is not equitable or fair to veterans in many parts of the country. Since 1995, in the Hudson Valley Health Care System, area which serves part of New York, we have seen the following: there has been a cut in the number of employees by 34 percent; beds have been cut by 52 percent; while the number of unique patients has increased by 76 percent; and the number of visits has increased by 84 percent. Despite increasing enrollment, our share of resources continues to shrink under VERA. VISN 3 and the region that I represent treats older and sicker veterans more so than any other VISN in the country. They have the highest fuel costs in the Nation, by far. We have the highest reported incidence of hepatitis C in the Nation and are treating the greatest number of hepatitis C patients, and have the highest rate of homeless veterans. VERA does not account for any of these costs. Despite the cuts in services and efforts to maximize operating efficiencies, we are still facing even more funding shortfalls in this part of the country. All the cuts in personnel and facilities that can be conceived of have been made in our region, yet VA facilities are facing a $32 million shortfall in the Hudson Valley area of New York, while VISN 3 as a whole is facing a $160 million shortfall. Under VERA, every year is a funding emergency, forcing us to beg for additional funding to address these shortfalls. This year, 4 VISNs are receiving emergency funds because of inadequacies in this VERA formula. My region, number 3, is receiving $64 million, far short of what is needed. Because of VERA and this year's inadequate budget, it is an absolute certainty we will need emergency funding to get through this next year. While those being injured the most under VERA are those who reside in the Northeast and Midwest areas of our country, other regions have suffered in the past and may do so again under VERA in the immediate future. In fiscal year 2002, the losses would include VISNs serving the following regions: the Bronx, New York; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Long Beach, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix Arizona; Albany New York; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Our veterans should not be penalized because of where they live, but as long as the Veterans' Administration is allocating resources in the name of this VERA formula, we will continue to have these inadequacies and injustices that do a great disservice to veterans in my part of the country and in many others. Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the provision in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for 2002 that reduces U.S. foreign assistance to the country of Ukraine to $125 million, which is $45 million below both last year's funding level and what the President requested. With its geo-strategic location between Russia and our NATO allies, Ukraine has an inherent importance to our national security. It houses a major naval fleet with access to the Mediterranean and can be a major communication and oil conduit between Europe and Asia. As the 6th most populous nation in Europe, Ukraine is filled with resources and promise, and we can't afford to turn our backs on it. Over the past 16 months, the Ukrainian economy has grown immensely. In fact since January of this year, Ukraine's GDP has risen by over 9%. The privatization of land and businesses has proceeded at an unprecedented rate and the National Bank of Ukraine has undergone a series of reforms to promote transparency and stability. These are tremendous accomplishments for a country that was part of the Soviet Union until 1991. This year also marks the 15th Anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the impact of this tragedy continues to haunt the Ukrainian people. Children still suffer from illness caused by exposure to radiation. Much of the farmland, which is vital to the survival of the people, remains contaminated. The recent closing of the remaining Chernobyl reactors has added to the already severe power shortage in Ukraine. The disastrous effects of this tragedy demand that this body reach out the hand of humanitarian aid. Despite its numerous accomplishments, Ukraine still requires U.S. assistance. The $125 million provided in this bill will not effectively fund the programs needed to assist Ukraine down the road toward democracy and prosperity. It is a shame that this bill severely cuts aid to this country, at a time when it is needed most. I believe that we should at least provide last year's level of funding, which was $170 million. Ukraine has made great strides since its independence and it deserves our continued support.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to also draw the attention of the Members of this House to the Hudson River Superfund site. The Hudson River Superfund site is the largest Superfund site in the Nation. It runs for about 150 miles, from the Battery to the Federal dam at Troy. It is a Federal Superfund site and a State Superfund site, for that matter, in New York because of the fact that the General Electric Company, over a period of several decades, dumped hundreds of tons of polychlorinated biphenyls into the Upper Hudson River above that dam. Most of these PCBs are now still concentrated in so-called hot spots or concentrations of PCBs in this location around Fort Edward and a number of other localities up above that dam. This site is a hazardous waste site because PCBs are extraordinarily toxic. They are toxic in the sense that they are known to be cancerous in animals, and they are suspected to be and some would say known to be cancerous in humans, as well. PCBs cause cancer. They also attack the endocrine system. That is the natural defense system of the body. It protects us against the invasion of disease. That endocrine system is attacked by PCBs. It makes it much more difficult for people to defend themselves against ailments and causes a whole array of sicknesses to exist in bodies that are exposed to these very toxic chemicals. Furthermore, PCBs attack the developmental system, and they are known to cause low birthweight babies and to cause a deterioration in the intellectual ability of infants as the mothers have been exposed to PCBs. So, Mr. Chairman, that is just a given indication of the seriousness of this question. For several decades, going back to in fact the late 1970s, both the State of New York and the Federal Government have examined this question. Over a period of time they have attempted to develop a solution for it. At no time, except within the last 8 years, has this been done in a very serious way. However, over the course of the last 8 years, and particularly within the last 6 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has developed a plan to remediate much of the PCBs from the Hudson River in order to protect people, particularly those located up in the upper river but also those people who live in the lower river, from the damage that is caused by the presence of these PCBs in the river. Let me say parenthetically, that damage, of course, has resounded throughout the ecological system of the Hudson River. Every form of life, from the tiniest biota to the largest animals at the top of the food chain, are affected with these PCBs; and anyone who eats any of the animals out of the river, any of the fish, chemicals, anything that comes out of the river, absorbs quantities of PCBs into their body. The PCBs concentrate in the fatty tissues within the body. Those PCBs concentrated in the fatty tissues are passed on to infants by the lactating mothers of those infants, again giving an indication of the seriousness of this particular problem. The EPA now has developed a plan to deal with this issue. That plan is to dredge the concentrations of PCBs, remove them from the river, and reduce very substantially the level of this problem and the damage it is causing to the environment and to human health. Now, however, we receive indications from the new EPA in a new administration that once again we may be facing inordinate and irresponsible, unconscionable and unexplainable delays. It seems, it is rumored, that this EPA, under this new administrator in this new administration, is not going to follow through on the carefully developed plan formulated by the Clinton administration EPA, formulated by the scientists within the EPA, peer-reviewed by scientists outside of the EPA, and found to be sound in virtually every detail. In spite of all that, this EPA under this administration, with this administrator, is backing away from the plan, we are told. How ironic that is when one considers that this EPA administrator, when she was the Governor of the State of New Jersey, repeatedly is on record saying that she favored dredging the PCBs out of the river. Now, apparently, she may be taking a different tune, apparently at the direction of the White House. I hope that that is not the case. This is a serious problem, and it needs to be addressed intelligently and seriously.