Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that ensures that two Federal positions designated as river navigator positions, including the contract positions for the Hudson River and the Susquehanna River, will continue to function, and that they will be funded in this appropriations bill. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for working with us on this very important subject. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who has also been very deeply concerned about the continuation of these positions, particularly in his case the position of river navigator for the Susquehanna River, which is a river that flows through Pennsylvania as well as New York. I believe that the language that we have arrived at here is language which is acceptable to the chairman of the subcommittee, and that the amendment will be accepted by him. Before I ask him that, I just want to make the point that these two positions are very, very important. What they do is they coordinate all Federal programs on these two rivers. These two rivers are two very important rivers, the Susquehanna, of course, feeding into the Chesapeake Bay, and there are a great many Federal programs, including programs consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and others, that are very important to these rivers and the people who live along them. Therefore, Federal coordination of all programs associated with these rivers is very important. I thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, for recognizing that importance, and I want to express to the gentleman my appreciation for the ability to work with him and express my pleasure in having had the opportunity to work with him on this important issue.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to my colleagues the following article written by Ned Sullivan on the issue of PCB contamination in the Hudson River of New York. Ned is the highly respected executive director of Scenic Hudson, Inc., a 37 year-old nonprofit environmental organization dedicated to protecting and enhancing the scenic, natural, historic, agricultural and recreational treasures of the Hudson River and its valley. Ned and I have worked together for many years in pursuit of removing sediment contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the ``hot spots'' in the upper Hudson River, in order to reduce threats to public health, revive local economies, reopen recreational opportunities along the river. I appreciate Ned's thoughtful analysis of this important issue. PCBs Pose Major Health Threat to New York City, and Beyond (By Ned Sullivan) For decades masses of the invisible, virtually indestructible cancer-causing PCBs that General Electric dumped from its factories on the Upper Hudson have moved down the majestic river, reaching dangerous levels in New York Harbor. They are still coming, clinging fiercely to the river's shifting silt, threatening the health of millions. There is no question that GE has the responsibility for cleaning up the worst of them at their source, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled after years of intensive study. In doing so the EPA employed methodologies endorsed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and worldwide peer review. GE has mounted a massive advertising and public relations effort aimed at reversing the EPA's decision. It has a force of seventeen high-powered lobbyists hard at work on the matter in Washington. For good measure the company's legal battalions have challenged provisions of the U.S. Superfund cleanup laws as unconstitutional. However these are the facts of the matter: According to the EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (U.S. Public Health Service) and the World Health Organization among others, PCBs are ``an acute and chronic health hazard.'' Humans exposed to the lethal substances are subject to skin, liver and brain cancers; respiratory impairments; severe acne-like skin rashes; impaired immune systems, adult reproductive system damage, and perhaps worst of all neurological defects and developmental disorders in the children of exposed females. David Carpenter, the highly respected former dean of the School of Public Health at SUNY/Albany, has stated: ``Our understanding of hazards from PCBs is growing much more rapidly than PCB levels are declining. So over time, the net reason for concern has only gotten greater, not less. Any time you decrease the IQ of your next generation, that's the ultimate pollution.'' The PCBs enter the food chain through fish and move upward rapidly through animals and humans. EPA health risk assessments reveal that humans eating just one meal of fish from the Hudson River per week are one thousand times more susceptible to cancer. The risk of other deleterious effects also increases significantly. The New York State Department of Health advises women of childbearing age and children under age 15 not to eat any fish from anywhere in the Hudson. Unfortunately large numbers of people, including the underprivileged who fish for subsistence and not sport; ethnic groups whose cultures embrace fishing, and even upscale sportspersons whose enjoyment includes cooking the catch, continue to eat Hudson fish in quantity despite the warning signs posted up and down the river. PCBs build up in the environment, the technical word is bioaccumulate, becoming more concentrated as they move up the food chain to the human level. Less than a month ago, scientists retained by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) released new evidence that the PCBs have been moving from the river's bottom onto land, where they are contaminating soil and animals along the banks, and in residential back yards. This stands in sharp contrast to the advertising campaign GE has been waging on the upper Hudson, showing abundant, flourishing wildlife flying over and splashing in a sparkling river. The public has not been taken in by GE's massive disinformation campaign. A statistically valid (plus or minus 3.5 percent) Marist College poll sponsored by Scenic Hudson reveals that 84 percent of those interviewed said the river should be cleaned up. That qualifies as a landslide. There is no question that the Hudson must be cleaned up. Scenic Hudson has interviewed senior representatives from more than two dozen scientific, academic, governmental and environmental institutions and found every one of them in favor of a cleanup. GE stands alone in insisting that science is on its side. It is high time General Electric honored its obligations to the public.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will take this amendment seriously, because it is in fact a very serious matter. It is, in some measure, a result of this global trading pattern that we have engaged in without really examining closely and understanding fully the consequences of this system. A recent report by our own State Department estimated that there are currently some 15,000 children working on cocoa and similar plantations in the Ivory Coast alone. That is the source of about 43 percent of the cocoa that is imported into this country. I think that if people in this country knew that they were buying products that were the result of slave labor, particularly the labor of children as young as 8 or 9 years old, they would not buy it. And I think that this amendment which proposes a simple labeling mechanism to indicate where this cocoa is coming from and the slave conditions under which it is being farmed and harvested is a good amendment and it ought to be adopted.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member, for her leadership on this committee and on this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee. I think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in his first year as chairman of the subcommittee, has produced a very good bill, and it has been a pleasure working with him in this endeavor. This bill adds $260 million to the President's request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It increases funding for farm programs, conservation, rural development, education and research, nutrition, and food safety. When you add in the $5.5 billion in emergency agricultural spending that the House passed earlier this week, total funding for these programs is substantially increased over last year. As with any of these bills, of course, it could be even better. I think we should have made in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to increase funding for food safety as well as the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to fund the Global School Lunch Initiative. But the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has written a balanced bill that addresses important priorities for rural America. The bill also includes $150 million for a market loss assistance program for apple growers. I offered this provision in committee with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and it was adopted by a strong bipartisan vote of 34 to 24. I appreciate everything that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) have done to protect this funding. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for their parts in writing the rule as well. The U.S. apple industry is suffering serious financial hardships for the fifth straight year as a result of low prices, bad weather, and plant diseases. During this time, the total value of U.S. apple production fell more than 25 percent, and losses from the 2000 crop alone will probably top $500 million. This is a nationwide figure and includes losses, not only in New York, but also in Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington State, Pennsylvania, and every other place where apples are grown as a commodity crop. Some of the apple losses can be blamed on foreign competition, the Chinese, for example, who were found guilty of dumping apple juice concentrate into the United States at prices below production costs. Increased tariffs have not significantly improved the price of apple juice in the last year. Apple producers in New York and the Northeast watched the value of their crop decline as a result of severe hail damage. In Michigan, growers suffered a crippling epidemic of fire blight that destroyed thousands of acres of orchards. Compared with the billions of dollars that Congress routinely sends to commodity producers, $150 million is a drop in the bucket. This payment, however, will mean the difference between life and death for many growers across the country. Mr. Chairman, apple growers face the same market, regulatory, trade and weather conditions that make the double AMTA payments necessary for row crop farmers. It is preposterous that our foreign policy differentiates so radically between them. This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to support it.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for a very good work product, but every product can be improved, and I think that this amendment would improve this energy and water bill significantly. One of the problems we face as a country, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that our energy policy looks backward rather than forward. We are dependent too heavily on fossil fuels, and increasingly those fossil fuels are coming from places beyond our shores. We are currently dependent on more than 50 percent of our oil from places outside of the United States. What this amendment would do would be to increase the funding for renewable energy within this bill by $50 million. It would pay for that funding by taking $60 million from the Energy Department's missile program. Now, that missile program within the Energy Department currently is funded at the rate of $5.1 billion. That is just within the Energy Department. This bill increased that funding by $118 million for the projected fiscal year. My amendment would take $60 million from that $118 million increase and apply $50 million of it to alternative energy. By alternative energy, of course, we mean producing energy through direct solar, by wind, geothermal and similar technologies. It is important that we do so. It is important that we do so, because we want to improve the availability of energy from sources other than fossil fuels, and it is particularly important in terms of nuclear security, because we want to reduce the amount of energy that we need to import from places that are outside the United States. We can do that by advancing technologies that promote solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Mr. Chairman, up until recently, the United States led the world in the production of energy through photovoltaic cells and other direct solar means; however, beginning in the decade of the 1980s, we began to lose that edge. And that edge currently is enjoyed by the Japanese. They have the edge on us by producing electricity directly from solar and by other solar means and photovoltaic cells particularly. Up until recently, we had the edge in producing energy through wind technologies. We have lost that edge to the Danes and to the Germans. They are currently ahead of us, and they have more advanced technology for producing energy through wind than we do. We know that within the next several decades, production of energy through solar and wind technologies and geothermal technologies will provide industrial opportunities globally to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps, trillions of dollars, even by the midpart of this century. And for that reason, alone, as well as our own independence and security, we ought to be advancing these techniques for energy production. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment, which would increase our funding for renewable energy technologies by $50 million, is frankly little enough; and perhaps, the least that we could do at this particular moment. It pays for this increase by drawing from the Energy Department's missile program. As we know, the Defense Department under Secretary Rumsfeld is currently engaged in a top-to-bottom review of our military defense program, and our nuclear missile program is going to be a major part of that. Mr. Chairman, this bill funds nuclear programs through the Energy Department in ways that are, I think, greatly outdated, even archaic. For example, there is a provision in this bill to pay $96 million for a particular type of cruise missile which is used only by the B-52 bomber. Now the B-52 bomber is 40 years old. It is clearly an outdated technology, and it is very likely that when the Rumsfeld review, top- to-bottom of our defense needs, is completed that this particular program is going to be rapidly phased out. I can cite a number of other nuclear technology examples that are archaic, that are outdated, and which will undoubtedly not be funded as a result of the top-to-bottom review of the Rumsfeld program. So, therefore, I think it makes sense to take this money from that program and put it here to renewable energy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, for putting together a very excellent bill to help us deal with the transportation needs of our country over the course of the upcoming fiscal year. In particular, I want to thank him for his attention to our air traffic needs and particularly to the subject of air traffic safety and the need to relieve air traffic congestion in many places around the country. The airport at the LaGuardia field in New York City is principal among them. The chairman has recognized that it is possible to relieve air traffic congestion at LaGuardia and other metropolitan airports by providing an alternative venue at Stewart International Airport, which is located just 60 miles north of Manhattan. The chairman has expressed that by working with us to obtain an appropriation of $5.7 million for a new air traffic control tower and air traffic control system at Stewart. If we are going to be successful in attracting new carriers into Stewart, new commercial carriers, this air traffic control system, which is funded in this appropriations bill, will be absolutely essential. I thank the chairman for that. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman for his recognition and allowing of report language in the bill which instructs the Federal Aviation Administration to pay attention to Stewart Airport as it addresses the need to relieve congestion at LaGuardia and other airports in the metropolitan region. We have placed language, report language, in the bill which stipulates that this should occur and that the FAA and the Federal Department of Transportation in addressing these needs also pay attention to the need to provide surface transportation between Newburgh where Stewart Airport is located and the metropolitan area of New York City. That is essential if this airport is going to be used in that way, and I thank the gentleman very much for his assistance in achieving these objectives.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, what we have learned this afternoon is that some Members in the majority party here hate the National Endowment for the Arts more than they hate energy conservation. If they really liked energy conservation, they had an opportunity to pass some responsible amendments to this bill, both in the Committee on Appropriations where it was defeated by a party line vote and out here on the full floor where they denied us the opportunity to have a vote on a bill that would have brought about $200 million in energy conservation. We are talking real energy conservation, not this little bit that the gentleman is talking about here. The gentleman does not want any energy conservation. He just cannot stand the National Endowment for the Arts more than he cannot stand energy conservation. He says it is not a cut. His bill gives us $57 million less for the National Endowment for the Arts than we had for it in 1995, and now we have a $10 million increase making us still $47 million lower than we had in 1995; and the gentleman wants to take that $10 million away. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. A previous speaker from the podium a few moments ago decried the fact that this bill funds inadequately the National Park Service, and that this amendment takes money away from that very much needed program. This is true. It is true. But the fact of the matter is that there are many things that are underfunded in this overall budgetary program. The reason for that is that the majority party insisted on a $3 trillion tax cut earlier this year, and that is why we do not have enough money to do the kinds of things that we really ought to be doing. We are here today to talk about giving a little bit more money to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, one of the tiniest programs in the Federal budget, I would say much to our chagrin, much to our shame. It ought to be much bigger. But where is that program today? In this budget, it is funded at $105 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $120 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 1995, NEA was funded at $57 million higher than it is today. NEH was funded at $52 million, higher than it is today in this budget. One of the most shameful things that the majority party did when it came into power here in 1995 was to dramatically slash funding for the arts and the humanities. Programs in schools all across our country and museums all across our country were slashed. Now, to their credit, our previous subcommittee chairman and our present subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), have worked to try to bring the funding level back up. I applaud them for it. But we are still woefully below where we ought to be, $57 million lower than in 1995 for the arts, $52 million lower than this 1995 for the humanities. We have got to fund these programs adequately. It is shameful the way we have treated these programs in the Congress. That is why this amendment is so important, because it moves these funding levels up slightly, and brings them back in the right direction.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1980 this Congress created Biscayne National Park, a park for all the people of the entire country. At that time there were seven leaseholders in the park who held campsites by lease. They were given a period of time to remove themselves from the national park. In 1990, they asked for an extension. That extension was given to them, and they had until 1999. They have had 20 years now for these leaseholders to get out of a national park. They are denying access to the public by holding these leases. This is a park that has been designated by the Congress for the enjoyment of all the people of the country. Anyone should be able to go there. They should not be able to be stopped by people who have illegal leaseholds. That is precisely what this is. The issue here is a very simple one. In a national park, are we going to allow private people who are intruders, who are violating the law, who have overstayed their welcome, to continue to be there and prevent the rest of the public from using that public land appropriately as the Congress has designated? That is the issue. I think that most people here would say no to that. We want the national parks to be used for the right purpose, to be used by all people, not by a few who have special interests, who have the ear of the Governor, or who have the ear of one of us Members of the Congress. I do not think any of us want to uphold that kind of a policy for public lands. A national park is there for all the people of the country. Let us make sure that this national park, Biscayne National Park, finally achieves that status and these people who have overstayed their welcome can finally leave quietly so that the rest of the public can enjoy that national park appropriately.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, just a few moments ago, and I was reminded about the capacity of the human mind to deceive itself. Ronald Reagan never sent a balanced budget up to this Congress, not once in all the 8 years that he was there. This bill is a mistake today. Anyone can make a mistake and any group of people can make a mistake, but it takes a certain level of foolishness to make the same mistake over again. In 1981, we passed a tax bill under the direct urging of a new Republican President. The result of that bill was deep recession and huge deficits, $5 trillion of deficits today as a result of that tax cut. Now we are being asked to do the same thing over again. If we do it, we know what is going to happen; and our Republican colleagues intend it to happen. There will be no money to deal with crumbling schools. There will be no money to deal with prescription drugs. There will be no money to deal with the problem of 13 million children living in poverty. All of those things our Republican colleagues do not want to address. That is why they want this tax cut passed. Let us defeat this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, a group of students from Kingston, New York have spent a good part of the past couple of years working with a students from St. Petersburg, Russia to draft a document that catalogs a set of universal rights of students. The program from which they are working is administered by the Center for Civic Education, which promotes worldwide community participation. The students in my district have been communicating with the students in St. Petersburg mostly by Internet, but have had personal exchanges as well, both in Russia and in New York. In comparing their educational stories, the students found that they shared similar experiences and held common opinions about problems that young people were faced with at either ends of the world. They decided it was time to document certain rights that they believed to be applicable to students around the world. The end result is the Universal Declaration of Pupil Rights. The students will soon be meeting with representatives of the United Nations to present their document. In recognition of the efforts that were put into creating this important document and because I firmly believe that all young people should be afforded certain rights that guarantee an appropriate education, I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to submit the Universal Declaration of Pupil Rights in the Record so that it may receive an appropriate level of attention. Universal Declaration of Pupil Rights

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian will be making a goodwill tour of Latin American later this month and will be stopping briefly in New York. We welcome this distinguished visitor to New York and hope that he will come back to the United States more often. Moreover, May 20th marks President Chen Shui-bian's first anniversary in office. Voters in Taiwan have given President Chen high approval ratings during his presidency. He has maintained a slow but steady economic growth, minimizing the impact of a worldwide economic slowdown on Taiwan's economy. Abroad, President Chen has been strengthening relations with allies and friends and continues to pursue a fruitful dialogue with leaders in the People's Republic of China. Due in part to President Chen's diplomatic efforts, peace continues to reign in the Taiwan Strait. President Chen has also fortified Taiwan's relations with the U.S. Taiwan is the eighth largest trading partner of the United States. Taiwanese tourists and students all prefer the United States and spend their dollars here. Bilateral relations between Taiwan and the U.S. are excellent. Both countries share the same fundamental values of freedom, democracy, human rights, peace and prosperity. I am pleased to express my congratulations to President Chen on his first anniversary in office and to wish him a pleasant and productive visit to my home state of New York.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address myself this evening to a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which came down around the end of last month, about 2\1/2\ weeks ago. It is a decision by the Supreme Court, a five to four decision, another one of those narrow decisions that is decided by one of the nine justices, which I think has very deep and compelling implications for every American. Let me tell you what that decision entailed. It involved a case in the State of Texas. The situation was this: A woman, a young mother, was bringing two of her children home from soccer practice. She was driving a pickup truck. The two children were in the cab with her. She was driving through a community at 15 miles per hour. She was stopped by a police officer of that community, and she was stopped because the police officer observed that she was not wearing a seat belt. There was no other infraction. She was driving below the speed limit, she had not violated any other of the vehicle and traffic laws or anything else. She was simply stopped by the police officer because he observed that she was not wearing a seat belt. He stopped her, with her two children; and he placed her under arrest. He put her in handcuffs, arrested her, took her into custody, and was about to take the two children into custody when, fortunately, a neighbor came by and took custody of the two children and took them home. But the woman was arrested and taken off to jail in handcuffs. She was later forced to place bond, $310 bond, for a violation, the fine for which would have been no more than $50 if the maximum fine had been imposed. The woman sued the city in Texas. It went through the court system and finally worked its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in a five to four decision declared that the officer was right in arresting her; he was right in putting her in handcuffs; he was right taking her into custody, taking her to jail; and it was right to force her to post a bail of more than $300. By the way, in the meantime they searched the vehicle. They searched the pickup truck, and they found some very dangerous equipment in the truck: A bicycle, two tricycles, a cooler for keeping beverages cool, some barbecue equipment, and a pair of children's shoes. That is what they found in the back of the truck. The Supreme Court said that that was right. Now, I am here this evening talking about this because I am increasingly disturbed by these right-wing decisions that are being made by a court which places in jeopardy the civil liberties and the civil rights of every single American, because after that Supreme Court decision, the court in effect has made law. It is now the law of the land that any police officer in any community at any time can stop anybody for not wearing a seat belt and take them into custody and take their children into custody too, for that matter, apparently, and search their vehicle, simply because they were not wearing a seat belt. It is interesting to note as I mentioned earlier it was a five to four decision. We are seeing a lot of these five to four decisions recently. The five justices included Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan; Justice Rehnquist, appointed by President Nixon and elevated to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Reagan; also joining in the majority was Justice Thomas, who was appointed by President Bush, the first President Bush; and also Justice Scalia, who was appointed by President Reagan. Also, oddly enough, Justice Souter, who usually has better sense than to join these other four in these decisions, but on this particular occasion it seems perhaps his experience as a prosecutor before becoming a judge may have overcome him and he displayed the kind of bad judgment which is exemplified in this five to four Supreme Court decision. I am worried about this also because we have seen recently that the President of the United States, Mr. Bush, the second Mr. Bush, has made it clear that he is no longer going to take recommendations from the American Bar Association with regard to justices on any of the Federal courts, that is the Federal Appeals Court, the circuit courts or the United States Supreme Court; and instead he is going to take recommendations from the Federalist Society. I think we all ought to be deeply concerned about what is going on in our courts and about the way that this particular decision typifies or exemplifies at least the kind of bad decisions that are being made on a five to four basis in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for yielding to me. Colleagues, this is a very important issue. It is important because it affects our constituents; it affects their retirement and their security and that of their families. Across this country some companies have changed their pension program from a defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, thereby robbing their pension systems of enormous amounts of money, billions of dollars, and reducing the pensions programs of virtually every employee. It particularly adversely affects those employees who are getting near retirement age. My colleagues' constituents are affected by this. We are not going to deal with this issue outside of this bill. We are not going to return to the issue of pensions anytime during this Congress. If we do not do it now, it is not going to get done; and the problem that exists will continue to exist and people will continue to get hurt. Please join us in this simple motion to recommit. Let us just correct this one single deficiency in this bill, improve it, and make it affect our constituents in a positive way. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? If the gentleman will yield and give me an opportunity, I would be happy to show it to him.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party here, the Republicans, are seeking to sell their budget principally by advancing a huge tax reduction, and they claim to justify that huge tax reduction by saying that it is the people's money and they want to give that money back to the people. First of all, that assertion is simply false. The biggest bulk of the tax cut goes to a tiny fraction of the American people, the wealthiest people in the country get the most reduction. If you are a millionaire, you will receive a reduction of about $50,000 when their budget and their tax cut is fully implemented. The rest of the people in the country get very little and most of them get nothing. If we were really interested in putting the people's money back in the pockets, in the hands of people so they could go to a 7-Eleven and make the purchase that was talked about a few moments ago, we would adopt the Progressive budget; that puts more money into the hands of more people sooner than the Republican tax cut does. Yes, it is the people's money, but it is also the people's Social Security. The Republican budget cuts Social Security. It is also the people's Medicare. The Republican budget cuts Medicare. Their budget takes fully $1 trillion out of Social Security and Medicare in a bogus attempt to fund a prescription drug program, by which they subsidize the insurance companies and would provide very little in the way of prescription drugs to the people who really need them. If we are interested in doing something for health care, adopt the Progressive budget. If we are interested in putting money in the hands of the people who can use it and would spend it, adopt the Progressive budget. If you are interested in doing something about education improving the quality of education for all the people of this country, adopt the Progressive budget, therein lies the solution to much of our economic problems not in the Republican budget.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, the budget resolution we have before us is essentially perverse. It is so because the main feature of this budget is a huge tax cut. Now, that tax cut, as was explained to us just a few minutes ago, is much larger than it pretends to be, or the President pretends it to be. When that tax cut over 10 years is fully implemented, it turns out to be at least $2.5 trillion. That eats up essentially all of the anticipated surplus under the rosiest of circumstances over the next 10 years. That means that there is nothing left for education, there is nothing left for health care, there is nothing left for agriculture, there is nothing left for disasters. Every penny which is anticipated to be in the budget under the rosiest scenario over the next decade is gone. It is wiped out. Why would anyone do that? Well, I think that there is a lesson here by examining history. This particular President was, for a period of time, the Governor of Texas. While he was Governor of Texas, he inherited a huge surplus from the previous administration, just as he has inherited a huge surplus from the previous Presidential administration here in Washington. So, in Texas, he engaged in a huge tax cut. He thought that that would be a good thing for the Texas economy. Well, what is the fact of the matter? The fact of the matter is now that the Texas budget is in serious deficit. The Texas economy is in serious decline. That is what this President wants to do to the Nation. When somebody asked him, well, what are you going to do about the situation in Texas, while he was campaigning last year, his response to that question was, well, I hope I am not there to deal with it, and he was not there to deal with it. But we and he and the American people will be there to deal with the perverse consequences of this tax cut if we allow it to happen. Now, what about Medicare? The President says he wants to have a prescription-drug program under Medicare, but there is no money for it because it is all gone, it is eaten up by his tax cut. So he wants to take money out of the Medicare trust fund and out of Social Security. He wants to take fully $1 trillion out of Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. Think about what that is going to do to the security of people who are relying upon Social Security for at least some part of their retirement. Think of what that is going to do to the health care of aged Americans who are relying upon Medicare to provide their health care during their elderly years. He eats up $1 trillion of Medicare and Social Security, and that is the effect of this budget; and that is why it needs to be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the Members of the House an issue of great public concern because it affects public health. In 1997, this Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to upgrade standards for arsenic across the country. The standards that we have today have been in effect since 1942. They are 50 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water. All around the world, countries have raised the standards to 10 parts per billion, because arsenic in drinking water is known to cause cancer of the bladder, the urinary tract, lung cancer, and other ailments. The backtracking on this rule that took place earlier this week is of great concern to all of us. The Bush administration has announced that it will not follow through on reducing arsenic in drinking water. This is a threat to the health and safety of more than 31 million Americans who now drink water with elevated levels of arsenic. Most of these people live in the southwestern portion of our country. I call upon the Bush administration and this Congress to stick by the raising of these standards for arsenic in drinking water. This is a matter of grave concern for public health and safety.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time. I thank him and the gentleman from New Jersey for organizing this time so we could address an issue that is perhaps the most important that faces the economy of our country and the welfare of the American people over the course of the next decade. We are increasingly alarmed about the statements that have been coming from the administration with regard to American energy policy and the steps that need to be taken to develop a coherent, comprehensive, safe energy policy that is going to maintain the strength of our economy and the welfare of our people. For example, on Monday, Bush said that he saw ``no short-term fixes to the country's energy problem.'' He also said ``it is clear from first analysis that the demand for energy in the United States is increasing much more so than its production. With the result, we are finding in certain parts of the country that we are short on energy, and this administration is concerned about it.'' Well, the administration may be concerned, but the two predicate statements before that are both incorrect. The current situation has no correlation whatsoever to demand outstripping supply and arises instead from what we have seen recently, and that is generators withholding energy and price gouging of consumers. In other words, those few people in our country who maintain control over the energy supply system and the generation system have been gouging consumers and withholding capacity from the marketplace in order to drive prices up. Instead of a responsible energy policy that addresses these artificial shortages, the only plan the administration has come up with is to open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other federally protected lands to oil and natural gas drilling. So what we have here in effect is a very convenient conflict of interests. What the President wants to do, in alliance with his oil production friends, is to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At the same time, he is using the alleged shortage of energy to try to develop public support and public opinion in that direction. While he is doing that, he is allowing his friends in the oil industry to gouge consumers by dramatically increasing prices and withholding energy capacity from the market. It is a very shocking circumstance, indeed. Let me just talk for another minute about the need to reduce the demand for oil and how that is key. Any serious energy plan must focus our efforts on reducing our demand for oil rather than on increasing our supplies, as the present administration seems determined to do. The centerpiece of the administration's energy plan is to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This move would simply be a gift to the oil companies that would do little, if anything, to affect our energy prices or our security. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated recently that the amount of oil that could be recovered from the Arctic Refuge would amount to less than a 6-month supply for American consumers. It will take 7 to 10 years for any oil from the Arctic Refuge to make its way to the market, and it would not even help many parts of our country. For example, none of it would be shipped east of the Rocky Mountains; and no Alaska oil would ever be refined into home heating oil, which many people depend upon to heat their homes and businesses. At no time would oil from the refuge be expected to meet any more than at most 2 percent of U.S. demand. The Arctic Refuge is one of our national treasures. It deserves to be protected as wilderness, of course, not to spoil for a few months' worth of oil. Oil, as we know, is a global commodity; and its price will always be driven by world markets that are for the most part beyond our control. The United States has only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but generates about 25 percent of world demand while gulf state OPEC members control about two-thirds of proven reserves. We currently depend upon imports for over half of our oil supplies. By 2015, this dependence is expected to increase to more than 68 percent. It is quite clear that we are not going to meet our energy needs by drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What we need is a policy of energy conservation, of renewable energy based upon solar or wind or other renewable sources, and we need to conserve. We can produce much more energy in our country through conservation than we can by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or any other portion of the country that is not currently exploited. That is where our efforts needs to go, in conservation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) very much for giving us the opportunity to make these points.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and privilege that I welcome here my constituent, Rabbi Lance Sussman, of Binghamton, New York, as the guest chaplain. We are honored to have Rabbi Sussman with us this morning to offer the opening prayer for today's session. Rabbi Sussman is a native of Baltimore, where he graduated from Franklin and Marshall College. He was ordained at the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, where he earned a Ph.D. in American Jewish history. In 1986, Rabbi Sussman was appointed to the faculty of Binghamton University, where he continues to teach Jewish history. He founded his own small press, called Kesher Press, and has published several notable works that document Jewish history in America and, specifically, in upstate New York. In 1990, the rabbi was called to lead the Temple Concord in Binghamton and for 11 years has served his congregation and his community with great distinction. He established a food pantry and a seasonal museum called Hanukkah House, which now attracts thousands of school children of all faiths from across our region of New York. Working with Elderhostel, the rabbi has also worked to make Temple Concord a leading center for adult Jewish education. Rabbi Sussman has been called to a new position as senior rabbi at the Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, where he will begin serving in July. He will be greatly missed by his congregation and the countless other residents of the Binghamton area whose lives he has touched. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this Chamber has honored Rabbi Sussman with the opportunity to offer today's opening prayer. It is a wonderful send-off for a fine man and spiritual leader. I hope that you will join me in welcoming Rabbi Sussman, his wife Liz, their children, family members and congregants.