Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, for the very respectable job they have done in putting this bill together. I think that we all need to recognize that. But the problem we have with this bill, which is a very real and serious and definite problem, is based upon the fact that the tools they had with which to operate were inadequate. The funding number that they were given is too low. The reason for that is the leadership here, at the request of the President, insisted on passing a massive tax cut before we had a budget, before priorities were established. That was a basic and fundamental mistake, and it is one for which we are going to pay dearly, not just this year but in every succeeding year over the course of the next decade. How are we going to pay? We are going to pay by inadequate provision for those people who defended this country in some of the most difficult and darkest times in our history, our veterans. We are not providing adequately for their health care, and we are not providing adequately for the general maintenance that many of them need. We are not doing that because we do not have the resources in this bill. We are not providing enough housing for people who need housing all across America. We have a $20 billion housing deficit today that is not being adequately addressed, and we cannot address it because of the inadequate funding level in this bill. People need housing. There are so many people in my district, I am sure, and in every district represented by every Member here, of people who cannot find adequate housing because housing is too expensive and their incomes are too low. The gentleman from Florida was up here a little bit earlier in the context of this debate talking about questions that have been raised by his constituents concerning the relationship between toxic and hazardous waste and the exposure of people to toxic and hazardous waste and their health conditions, debilitating, declining health conditions. What is the relationship? There is an unquestionable relationship between people who have been exposed to toxic and hazardous waste and decline in their health in forms of cancer, attacks of the endocrine system, in developmental disabilities. And this bill, unfortunately, because it has an inadequate funding level, does not deal with the problem of enforcement of toxic and hazardous waste laws. Therefore, people in Florida and other places all across the country are being exposed to toxic and hazardous substances which are destroying their health. There is not enough money in this bill to deal with the problems of drug control in public housing. We fund hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with the problem that we think we have in South America, sending money down there to kill South Americans, but we do not provide enough money to save the lives of Americans in public housing. The priorities are inadequate, and it is because of inadequate funding because of that tax bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this appropriations bill and the rule attendant to it presents somewhat of a serious dilemma to all of us who are approaching this issue very carefully. On the one hand, it elicits only a sense of praise for the subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the full committee, the ranking members, for the way in which they have squeezed as much as they have into this bill, given the limited resources that they had to work with. But that is essentially the problem. We have choked ourselves off in this country by this enormous tax cut that we passed earlier this year preceding the budget, in the craziest way of approaching fiscal policy I think we have seen in this government in a long, long time. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with some very serious problems we are not addressing. The gentleman from South Carolina just made the point about housing. We have a $20 billion backlog in housing. We have a housing crisis in this country. Many people, in urban and rural areas across America, find it impossible to get a house. Municipal workers, for example, are not making enough money to afford a house in the present market. This is a housing crisis. There is no place for them to live and raise their families. Similar things can be said about environmental protection. This bill does the best it can, but it does not provide nearly enough money to protect the quality of the natural environment from toxic discharges and other releases into the ambient air and the general environment. That is a serious mistake. And why? Because we choked ourselves off with that huge tax cut, and we do not have the resources that we need to attend to vital concerns addressing our people. The same thing can be said about health care. The same thing can be said about our growing crisis in transportation. Look at any of the airports in this country and you can see it very, very clearly. Drive along the roads during rush hour. It becomes readily apparent. We are not doing anything to deal with the need for surface transportation, particularly rail transportation between our major cities. So, this is a dilemma for all of us. We are not allowing ourselves to deal with these important issues facing the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to say a word about the proposed plan to begin a privatization of Social Security. We are being told by the privatizers in the Bush administration and elsewhere that the Social Security system is in some jeopardy and that, in fact, if we do not take drastic action, that the plan will begin to exhaust its funds somewhere around the year 2016. Well, 2016 under the present set of circumstances is the point at which Social Security will begin to pay out more than it is taking in. But even at that moment it will have a surplus which will be in the trillions of dollars. The surplus today, for example, is $1.2 trillion. That is to illustrate that the Social Security system is in no crisis whatsoever. But we are being told that it is because the privatizers want to undermine the confidence of the American people in this system of Social Security which has provided just that now for almost 70 years. Social Security has taken a situation where more than half of the American elderly are living under the poverty level and changed that to a situation where virtually no retirees, no elderly people are living in poverty thanks to the stability and the security in Social Security. Now, the estimate that says that Social Security will begin running out of funds around 2016, of course, is just that. It is an estimate. It is based upon numbers that are made up. It is projections based upon those made-up numbers. If we used a different set of numbers, of course, we would likely come up with a different result. Let us try that. Let us take the numbers that were used to justify the President's tax cut, a tax cut which I regard as being irresponsible, particularly in view of the fact that it gives most of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population; but let us take the numbers that were used by the administration to justify that tax cut. Under those numbers we come up with a very different situation. If we were to apply those numbers to the Social Security scenario, those more optimistic numbers, those numbers that show economic growth going out into the future, what we find is the Social Security system does not begin to pay out more benefits in 2016, but, rather, the Social Security system will last with great strength and vigor until at least 2075. So, what does that tell us? It tells us that people are being disingenuous, people are being dishonest, people are using numbers to try to create an impression to undermine confidence in Social Security where there is no justification whatsoever for undermining confidence in Social Security. The President tells us he would like to have a system whereby people could invest in the stock market. Well, there is nothing wrong with that. People, if they can afford it, ought to invest in the stock market. Why does the President not set up a program whereby this government will match the funds that people set aside outside of Social Security, independent of Social Security, and have that money invested in the stock market? That would be a very good idea. It would not undermine Social Security. It would leave it just as it is, strong and secure, providing benefits into the future just as it was intended to do and has always done. If the President were really serious about trying to do something to help people in their retirement years, I have an idea for him. Here is what we ought to do. He ought to send to this Congress legislation which would strengthen the private pension plans of all American workers. We need that because there are a growing number of corporations in this country which are undermining their own pension plans, which are providing fewer benefits to their workers in the future, taking away from them health insurance as well. We need to protect those pension plans. Many corporations are using those pension plans to pretend that they are profits within the company, thereby enhancing the compensation of executives for the company and making it appear as if the company is actually stronger than it is. That is wrong, and the private pension plans ought not to be used in that way. So Social Security is in no trouble. Let us leave it. If we want to do something for retirees, we can set up an independent plan. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes section 635 from the bill here before us. In that section, the administration has proposed a new provision that allows the Secretary of the Navy to accept gifts of food, beverages, table centerpieces, flowers or temporary outdoor shelters for official functions at the residence of the Vice President. What exactly does the term ``official function'' mean as it relates to this provision? What it means is among these: Dinners hosting foreign dignitaries; receptions for visiting officials of States, territories or political subdivisions thereof; picnics hosted for residents of the U.S. Naval Observatory or the U.S. Secret Service protective detail; and meetings on policy matters or official social events with Federal agency heads, Members of Congress or with private persons. This language in the bill before us raises some very serious questions. We know that executive branch employees cannot accept such gifts. We know that Navy personnel cannot accept gifts particularly from people who are seeking to influence them. Frankly, as an ex- serviceman, particularly as a former enlisted Navy veteran, I am deeply troubled by the idea that the Navy is going to be funneling special gifts from private persons and private entities to the Vice President of the United States. It also means that the White House can only accept food and drink in very limited circumstances, such as the annual Christmas party. Yet this provision, the provision that I am seeking to strike from the bill, gives the green light to the Vice President to accept food and drink from private persons who come to meet with him on policy matters. It is hard to fathom why the administration feels the need for this provision. I hope that the President's tax cut has not left us in such condition that we need to be seeking these kinds of gifts from outside persons, particularly from corporations seeking favors from the administration. Currently, the entertainment and reception costs incurred in the Vice President's residence for official functions are funded with appropriated dollars, and that is as it should be. Food and beverage at the Vice President's residence cost less than $50,000 a year. Surely we can afford to appropriate these funds so that the Vice President does not need to take handouts from corporations trying to curry favor with the administration. Unfortunately, instead of trying to avoid the appearance that it is not beholden to special interests, this administration goes out of its way to be extra accommodating. From its decision on arsenic and mining wastes that have benefited big polluters to the Vice President's energy task force that met in secrecy and came up with a plan to benefit big oil and coal, this administration, even in its infancy, has been particularly adept at serving special interests. Now we have meetings at the Vice President's residence sponsored by we do not know who, sponsored by perhaps Enron and Exxon meeting on energy issues, we can see the banners hanging over the room now; sponsored by Archer-Daniels-Midland on issues relating to agriculture; on meetings of social policy sponsored by the Cato Institute. This is wrong. We ought not to have this crass kind of commercialization polluting the Vice President's residence. Meetings that occur there ought to be free and clear of inappropriate outside influence. Meetings that occur there and decisions that are made there ought to be based on the merits exclusively, entirely; and they ought not to be subject to the kind of outside influence that these meetings will inevitably be if we allow this provision to prevail.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, I could not help but remember the words of Harry Truman. When he was interviewed for the biography ``Plain Speaking'' just before his death in Independence, Missouri, he was asked the question, ``What would you do about Cuba if you were still President?'' He said, ``I would pick up the phone and call Fidel and say, I see you have some problems down there, Fidel. Why don't you come on up here, and we will talk about them and see if we can't settle this thing.'' Boy, if he had only been President, and if other Presidents had only followed that kind of advice since then, we would not have the necessity of this debate today. Why a strong, powerful country like the United States has to make an enemy of a weak, defenseless little country like Cuba is a question that we could speculate upon for some length of time. But one thing is absolutely clear, the policy of the last 40 years has failed. It is time to open the doors and let the fresh air come in.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this time, if I may, or some of it at least, to talk about the amendment that has been offered to us by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). This amendment would shift $100 million dollars of U.S. aid from the Colombian military to maternal health and child survival programs, as well as a fund to fight tuberculosis. Over the past year, we must be aware that the situation in Colombia has deteriorated. Since August of 2000, when our government began delivering the new aid package, up to this moment, there has been a severe escalation of human rights violations in Colombia. The number of massacres by paramilitary and guerilla forces in the first 4 months of this year is nearly double the number in the first 4 months of the year 2000. Despite an increase in U.S. aid, the military rarely acted to protect innocent civilians, and there are numerous instances of collaboration between the Colombia military and right-wing paramilitary groups. A disturbing example of this took place in the City of Barrancabermeja. On July 6 of this year, a group of heavily armed paramilitary reportedly tried to assassinate trade union leader Hernando Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez, however, narrowly escaped after being warned by friends. The case in this particular city, the case of Mr. Hernandez, is one of the lucky ones. In the first 45 days of this year, 145 people have been killed in this small city, Barrancabermeja. These killings take place in spite of the fact that this is one of the most militarized cities in all of Colombia. The Colombian Army's Fifth Brigade maintains a military presence, and that includes the U.S.-funded 61st Advanced Riverine Battalion. These units have made absolutely no serious efforts to restrain the paramilitaries from committing these atrocities. Mr. Chairman, U.S. funding of the Colombian military has led to more human rights abuses, an increased number of political killings while, at the same time, not at all reducing drug use or violence in our own country. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) takes money away from a failing program and shifts it to important and grossly underfunded global health initiatives. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is a simple limitation that would prevent the Justice Department from using any of the funds appropriated to it by this bill to interfere with the implementation of State medical marijuana laws. During the past 5 years, nine States, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State, have passed laws that decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. With the exception of Hawaii, all of these laws were adopted by citizen referenda. The average vote in these States was in excess of 60 percent in favor. These laws are not free-for-alls that open the door to wholesale legalization, as critics claim. Rather, in every case, they specify in great detail the illnesses for which patients may use medical marijuana, the amounts that patients may possess, and the conditions under which it can be grown and obtained. Most establish a State registry and an I.D. card for patients. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic with no permissible medical use. Despite the difficulty of conducting clinical trials on such a drug, it has been highly effective in treating symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other serious medical conditions. In fact, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has recommending smoking marijuana for certain medical uses. The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, Kaiser Permanente and the New England Journal of Medicine have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana. Internationally, the Canadian government has adopted regulations that go into effect at the end of this month for the use of medical marijuana in that country. In addition, the British Medical Association, the French Ministry of Health, the Israeli Health Ministry and the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis have all recommended the medical use of marijuana. Here at home, however, our Federal Government has been unequivocal in its opposition to the citizen-led initiatives in these nine States. After California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the Clinton Justice Department brought suit against both doctors and distributors in an attempt to shut down the new law. Federal laws upheld the right of doctors to talk to their patients about medical marijuana. The Supreme Court, however, recently ruled that it is a violation of Federal law to distribute marijuana for medical purposes. Despite State laws that protect patients and cannabis clubs from State prosecution, the United States Supreme Court cleared the way for the Federal Government to enforce Federal laws against these individuals. Attorney General Ashcroft has not indicated whether he will instruct the local U.S. Attorneys to enforce this decision which makes passage of this amendment critical to the States that have enacted medical marijuana laws. This amendment would prevent the Justice Department from arresting, prosecuting, suing or otherwise discouraging doctors, patients and distributors in those States from acting in compliance with their own State laws. This amendment in no way endorses marijuana for recreational use. It does not reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive schedule of narcotic. It does not require any State to adopt a medical marijuana law. It will not prevent Federal officials from enforcing drug laws against drug kingpins, narcotraffickers, street dealers, habitual criminals, addicts, recreational users, or anyone other than people who comply with medical marijuana laws in those nine States. By limiting the Justice Department in this way, we will be reaffirming the power of citizen democracy and State and local government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the discussion. For the last 9 years, the member colleges and universities of the National Textile Center have been doing research and outreach and support of the textile industry. Its research goals have been to discover, design, and develop new materials and innovative and improved manufacturing and integrated systems essential to the success of modern United States textile enterprises. While the National Textile Center has been doing good work, they have neglected the research programs of two of the Nation's top textile- producing States, New York and California. Both Cornell University and the University of California at Davis, New York's and California's respective land grant universities, should be a part of this important research consortium. New York is the number two State in apparel manufacturing based on annual gross State product. Apparel manufacturing is the largest manufacturing sector in New York City, and constitutes about one-third of all of New York City's manufacturing. New York State employs the second-highest number of people in apparel manufacturing, after California. The apparel industry contributed $4.47 billion in value-added manufacturing and $9.64 billion in shipments to the 1997 New York State annual gross product. At Cornell University, the Department of Textiles and Apparel is nationally recognized for its research and outreach that focus on apparel design, apparel technology, and fiber science. Beyond that, there are some extraordinarily innovative research and design programs that are going on at these institutions. The research involved not only will impact what we traditionally recognize as apparel and textiles, but also has implications for public health, public safety, and even public works. For example, Cornell researcher Anil Netravali has evaluated the use of epoxy lining for gas service pipes. Many of the service pipes that connect homes and businesses with the main gas lines are old and corroded, and are expensive to replace because of the extensive digging and disruption that is required. I urge that these two schools be taken into consideration in this program. It is essential for the future of the textile industry in America. Mr. Chairman, Professor C.C. Chu is working on biodegradable hydrogels that can be used in the medical sciences. The potential products from hydrogel textiles can be used in tissue engineering and could include skin, cartilage and even blood vessel replacement options. The availability of these tissue-engineered products could have significant implications for our health-care needs. The National Textile Center is the primary federal funding source for university-based textile and apparel research. Cornell University and the University of California at Davis should be able to compete for the funds that are made available through this important Department of Commerce program. There is no justifiable reason for excluding these two esteemed institutions from participating in this research consortium.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government does not regulate medical practice or license it, either. That is done by the States. We should not interfere with the States' conception of how medical practice ought to be carried out in those jurisdictions. We have never done so in other regards, and we should not do so in this one. Mr. Chairman, a great Justice of the Supreme Court in an earlier day made the observation that the States should be the laboratories of democracy. We have destroyed those laboratories. We are shutting down those laboratories. We are closing down democracy with these laws. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give us the opportunity to open those laboratories again and to give the States the freedom to experiment in the way that they think is best in the interests of their own people. Mr. Chairman, I have determined over the course of the last few days that this House is not ready to vote on this issue at this moment. I wish it were. Therefore, I have taken the opportunity this evening to bring this issue before us to give us an opportunity to discuss it in a rational and logical and mature way. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for the Economic Development Administration by $73 million. This would simply level-fund EDA at what it had last year. Since 1965, the EDA has been helping communities build their infrastructure, develop their business base, rebuild their economies in the wake of natural disasters, plant closings and military base realignments, and also address persistent unemployment and underemployment problems. Over the years, EDA has invested more than $16 billion all across the country. It has been a good investment, generating almost three times as much supporting private investment. EDA public works programs help fund locally developed infrastructure projects that are critical to attracting private sector businesses to local communities. Every dollar of EDA public works money generates an additional $10 in private investment results. It is clear, I think, that in each and every one of our districts, we have seen the effects of EDA. We offset this $73 million by decreasing the prison construction account by a like amount, $73 million. The bill provides $813.5 million for prison construction. With this reduction, there is still more than $740 million left in this account to build new Federal prisons. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the purposeful way in which the appropriations process has proceeded under his leadership. But it is also true that this motion to instruct draws our attention to some very serious deficiencies in the budgetary process which are becoming more obvious with the passage of every day. The White House today tells us that the anticipated budget surplus of $200 billion for the year is down very, very substantially, by more than $30 billion, more than 15 percent. It is very likely that if disaster strikes from natural causes or if we have an invasion of foreign animal disease strike our shores, that we will respond appropriately with the necessary funds. But the question arises where are those funds going to come from if we do not budget for them in the first instance. Increasingly one is driven to conclude that the answer to that question is going to be from places like the Medicare Trust Fund initially and perhaps even the Social Security Trust Fund if that becomes necessary. That is why this motion to instruct is very appropriate. Every Member of this House ought to give it their very careful consideration. We are not being honest in the way we are dealing with the people's money here. We are living in a time of budget surpluses, but those surpluses are going down day after day, week after week. If we do not anticipate our needs honestly and appropriately now, sure as we are standing here, we are going to be digging into those trust funds, and the security of our senior citizens who rely upon the Medicare Trust Fund to get their health care needs will be put into jeopardy. This motion to instruct is very appropriate, very pointed, and we ought to pass it.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the honest opponents of this bill are focusing on the trees and, therefore, cannot see the forest. The forest is that Americans pay exorbitantly high prices for pharmaceuticals. We subsidize the price of pharmaceuticals everywhere else in the world. If we were running this place properly, we would have an honest debate on a pharmaceutical drug program under Medicare. We are not going to have that. We would have an honest debate about health insurance for all Americans. We are not going to have that. Mr. Chairman, this is the only vehicle that we are permitted. If Members want to move us closer to honest prices for pharmaceuticals for senior citizens and everyone else in America, vote for this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, for those very kind words, and for her diligent and very effective work on the committee. Once again, I want to extend my appreciation to the chairman of our subcommittee and also to the staff that works under his direction for their assistance in putting this amendment together and for its successful acceptance. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.