Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, while I often have the privilege of congratulating outstanding members of our community, I rarely have the honor of recognizing an individual as distinguished as Mescal Hornbeck. Through her work as nurse, teacher, community leader and town councilperson, Mescal has dedicated her life to helping others. Mescal was instrumental in the development of the Woodstock Senior Recreation Committee, which continues to provide enjoyment for our senior citizens. Mescal's leadership with Meals on Wheels of Woodstock and the Woodstock Community Center is commendable and reflects her life-long commitment to community service. I am particularly grateful for Mescal's involvement with the Woodstock Chapter of Citizens for Universal Health Care where she is a tireless advocate for health care reform. I have been fortunate to know and work with Mescal and have always found her to be extremely devoted to improving our community and our country. I am proud to call her my good friend. Mescal Hornbeck is a most deserving honoree and I applaud the creation of Woodstock's ``Mescal Appreciation Day.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was delayed en route. The plane just arrived. As a consequence I got in the House just a few minutes after the vote was closed. Had I been here, I would have voted in the affirmative. Stated for:

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as a result of travel difficulties, on rollcall No. 574 and rollcall No. 575, I was unavoidably detained en route to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friend, the gentleman from Florida who was here at the podium a few moments ago, that this issue is about energy policy and it is about people being cold and it is about people surviving this winter. That may not be true if one lives in Florida, but it is true for those living in New York or New Hampshire or Pennsylvania or Ohio or Wisconsin or Michigan. This is a critical issue for people in all those States. So it is important that we raise the level of LIHEAP funding. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, because, earlier this month, I asked for a request of $8 million to fund the continued operation of the President's initiated Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which is now funded. But I also want to say a couple of things about energy policy in this country and who is directing it at this moment, because that policy is being directed by the oil companies. The three largest oil firms are currently reporting quarterly profits that double last year's earnings. Leading the way was Exxon-Mobil, which 3 months ago posted the largest quarterly profits ever for a U.S. corporation. It beat that record just a couple of days ago with the announcement that it had earned $4.3 billion in the third quarter. Chevron-Texaco, which announced last week that it will merge, and Conoco all reported that their profits have doubled just recently. Exxon-Mobil's vice president is quoted as saying, ``We've got a lot of cash around here. It's coming in pretty fast. Flying through the door.'' So while Americans are struggling trying to pay their home heating bills and the gasoline bills to get back and forth to work, the energy companies are racking up records profits. The oil companies are not using their profits to invest in new oil and gas exploration, which would ultimately lead to lower prices, decreased dependence on foreign oil, and greater stability in the market. Instead, what they are doing is using the profits to repurchase their stocks so that they can raise the stock price. We ought to have the Committee on Commerce convene immediate hearings on the outrageous profits of the oil companies. That is a responsibility that we place on the other side of the aisle. Immediate hearings to determine what is going on.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to bring to the attention of the Members of the House some information with regard to education and the condition of schools around the country, both in the State of New York and nationwide. In New York, for example, there are a total number of 4,172 schools currently operating in the State. The total State and local district school construction spending in the most recent year for which figures are available was $1.6 billion. According to the Census Bureau, New York, along with Texas and Florida, spends the most on the cost of school construction. However, despite being among the top three spenders for school construction, the poor condition of too many New York schools sends a clear signal that State and local funding is simply not enough to meet modernization needs. In New York, as is true in many places around the country, the local school districts rely on the local real property tax to pay for the cost of education, including construction and modernization of our schools. Ninety percent of the schools report a need to upgrade or repair buildings in order to bring them up to a good overall condition. In other words, 90 percent are less than good. Sixty-seven percent report at least one inadequate building feature such as the roof, plumbing, electricity. Seventy-six percent report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor such as air quality, ventilation, or lighting. There are computers in the schools, but there is only one computer for every 16 students, 16 students trying to use each computer. In 1998 and 1999, New York paid $618 million in interest on school debt. Again, this money comes out of the local real property tax. Sadly, these statistics reflect the condition of school buildings in almost every place around the country. Two years ago, I conducted a school modernization study in the district that I represent, which is a largely rural district in upstate central New York. It has five small cities, but the rest of the district is largely rural. In addition to finding similar results as those I have just mentioned, I discovered also that nearly one-third of the schools in the New York State district that I represent were built before 1940. More than one-third of the schools surveyed reported being cited for fire code violations at some point within the previous year. Over half the respondents said that overcrowding in their classrooms was a serious problem. This is costing us. It is costing us in the education of our children and the ability of those children to perform in the future, and it is going to cost our economy unless we face up to this problem. The Democrats in this House, along with President Clinton and Vice President Gore, believe very strongly that in order to get our schools into the condition that they should be in the Federal Government needs to help local school districts afford to repair and modernize our schools. We have a bipartisan bill. It is sponsored by Republicans as well as Democrats. It would provide $22 billion in public bonding authority to help rebuild and repair over 5,000 public schools. This bill would bring $2.5 billion to New York State alone for school construction and modernization. The bill is popular in this House. It has 228 sponsors, including a number of Republicans as well as Democrats. And yet, the Republican leadership has thus far refused to allow for any consideration, any reasonable debate or a hearing on the floor of the House. According to the General Accounting Office, a record 52.7 million children are enrolled currently in elementary and secondary schools across the country. That number is expected to climb to 54.3 children within less than 8 years. Thousands of new public schools will be needed within the next few years to accommodate rising enrollments. We cannot expect States and local school districts, relying as they do on local real property taxes, to shoulder this financial burden. We ought to bring this bill to the floor of the House. We ought to give it careful and thoughtful consideration. We ought to give the Members of this House an opportunity to debate and vote on the bill. The 228 sponsors believe that if that happens the bill will pass and we will provide the relief that is necessary for school districts and the children and the families they serve across the country. I hope that before we leave here this bill will come to the floor and we will give it the consideration that it needs. The future of our country and specifically the future of our children and communities all across America depend upon modernizing our schools, providing these school construction funds.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, made the assertion at that podium that often in an election year the first casualty is truth; and then, over the course of the next several minutes, he went on to prove that, at least in some cases, that assertion can be true. He asserted that a couple of years after President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the budget deficit was still $200 billion. You can hurt the truth and kill the truth by acts of omission as well as commission, and that is what happened in that particular case. What he failed to observe was that when President Clinton and Vice President Gore came to the White House, the annual budget deficit that year was almost $300 billion; and so, yes, a couple of years later it was already reduced by $100 billion, and it was continuing to go down. He used the phrase ``budget deficits as far as the eye could see.'' That is a phrase that was coined by the Office of Management and Budget, the Budget Director, of the outgoing Bush Administration, and the outgoing Bush Administration predicted that under the policies of former President Bush, that the deficit today would be $445 or $450 billion. That is ``deficits as far as the eye can see.'' Yes, unquestionably, it was in fact the budget resolution of 1993, added on to the previous one in the Bush Administration, that has brought this Nation back to fiscal sanity and brought the budget back into balance, and in fact brought the budget this year into a $211 billion surplus; a $500 billion turnaround in the 8 years that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been in the White House. Those are the facts. Mr. Speaker, the facts today are these: we are fighting now over a budget here, and the issues are these. You want a tax cut for the richest people in the country; we want services for the American people. We want a Patients' Bill of Rights; you do not. We want a prescription drug program for people who have to pay for their prescription drugs out of their pocket; you do not. We want an increase in the minimum wage; you do not. We want a reasonable and modest middle class tax cut, which will provide the majority of the benefits to the working people of this country; you want to give $1 trillion to the richest people in the country. Those are the issues upon which we differ, and those are the issues that need to be decided, and they will not be decided by passing a continuing resolution. They will only be decided by staying here and debating these issues, and bringing the bills out on the floor so that they can get honest and fair votes, and so far you have refused to do that.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman from California, I think, makes very important points about it as well. It is even true that after you require it in the law, if you do not have proper enforcement of the law, even then you will find some of these corporations that were responsible for the pollution in the first instance resisting taking the appropriate and responsible action to clean up the mess that they made. The gentleman mentioned the Hudson River. That is one clear example where you have had PCB contamination now for decades and the responsible parties have not done anything to address that pollution. In fact, what they have done is they have come here to the Congress, they have gotten Members of the Congress to introduce amendments to pieces of legislation which will, in fact, delay any act of responsibility on their part. So not only do voluntary actions not work but in addition to the law we have found in our experience that you also have to have effective enforcement. No, absolutely not, they are not going to do any of these things voluntarily because it costs them money, and it should cost them money because they made enormous profits in creating that pollution in the first place in most instances. But in addition to having good, decent, powerful laws, you also have to have consistent and effective and honest enforcement.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I particularly thank the gentleman for taking this time to discuss an important issue, which has not gotten the attention that I think it deserves in the context of this particular Congress. In fact, as a member of this Congress, I have often felt that we are fighting a defensive action here, where we are taking actions that are designed to prevent harm from being done rather than moving forward in a positive direction on a number of environmental issues that really need to be addressed. The Endangered Species Act is one, and I know that the gentleman just referenced it, that deserves a great deal of attention. The issue of CARA, a piece of legislation which is designed to protect public lands and open space, and provide also recreational opportunities both in rural and urban settings, is a critically important piece of legislation. A good portion of that was advanced in the context of the interior bill, which we passed here just recently and which was signed by the President just the other day. Now, the reason that that provision advanced in the interior bill was in large measure a result of the leadership provided by the administration, both the President and Vice President Gore. That interior bill contained a landmark preservation, if I am not mistaken the amount was $12 billion, over a period of time for open space protection, preservation, and also for recreational activities, again in rural but also in urban settings in association with urban parks and things of that nature. One of the issues that I think that we really need to address, and which has not gotten enough attention, is the issue of water resources, particularly fresh water resources. It is true, and many people have observed fairly recently, that fresh water resources around the world, including those fresh water resources here in the United States, are being depleted, particularly those resources that lie in aquifers underground. We know that, for example, in the great Midwestern section of our country there is a huge underground reservoir known as the Ogallala, which runs from northern Texas up to the Dakotas, and covers a huge vast area, or at least underlies a huge vast area of the central plains. That water resource contained in that Ogallala underground reservoir is being depleted at a rather alarming rate. This is fossil water. In other words, it is water that has lain underground for centuries and there is no visible source of rejuvenation for this aquifer. The fact that we are depleting it at such a rapid rate is something that ought to be of increasing concern. Now, the depletion is primarily for agricultural purposes, for applications of an agricultural nature throughout that area, and, of course, good purpose. But the idea that we can continue to drain a resource in the belief that that resource is always going to be there and will not be depleted is a false notion. It is a basic fallacy, and it is one with which we have to come to grips. So I think that this issue of fresh water resources is an issue that is going to require a great deal of attention from this Congress in the future and from the next administration. And that, of course, raises the question of what kind of administration do we want to have in place here to succeed the Clinton administration which will husband these resources in a reasonable way; in a logical and rational and intelligent way. I think the answer to that question becomes quite apparent when we look at the choices that we have before us. We have on the one hand Governor Bush, who has a record of depletion and deterioration of resources in the State in which he is the executive; and, on the other hand, we have Vice President Gore, who has a very deep and long record of environmental protection and husbanding of resources going back to the time when he served in this House, and then later in the Senate, and all of which he brought to his position as Vice President of the United States. So I think as people make decisions with regard to this upcoming election, and I think it is easy to lose track of time around here, but I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 weeks now until November 7, as people begin to think more closely about the decision they are going to make with regard to who is going to be the leader of our country for the next 4 years, I think one of the issues that they ought to factor into their decision-making is the issue of the environment and who among those who are holding themselves out for this office for President of the United States is best equipped and has the knowledge and the sensitivity and the ability to care about this issue. Who is best equipped, then, in that regard, to assume the responsibility of President of the United States. So this is one of the issues that is of concern to me as I think about the upcoming election and I think about the kind of leadership that we are going to need to carry us forward into the 21st century at a time when environmental resources are going to be increasingly under adverse pressure and forced into adverse circumstances. So that is a question which I hope people will be thinking closely about as they make their decision about the President and Members of the Congress and Members of the Senate as they cast their vote on November 7.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make an observation, if I may, in connection with the comments that were made just a moment ago by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I think that occasionally, if we look at these issues superficially, we fail to recognize the co-relationship between issues that sometimes are taken separately and distinctly and not joined together. The gentleman mentioned the relationship, for example, between the environment and energy. And there is a clear nexus there, obviously, that needs to be dealt with. And in that regard, it gives another opportunity to talk a little bit about the initiatives of Vice President Gore and his leadership on both environmental and energy issues in a way that addresses the complexities of both. For example, we know that we are increasingly dependent upon foreign oil. I think we are importing now something in the neighborhood of 56 percent of the oil that we consume here in the United States from outside of our borders. This becomes, at that level, an issue even of national security. We are far too dependent upon outside sources for the fossil fuel that we depend upon for transportation, for heating, and for a variety of other uses. Now, that is something that we have to deal with. We have to gain energy independence to a greater degree. We have to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. How do we do that? One of the ways in which we do it is to develop alternative sources of energy. And this is an issue on which Vice President Gore has taken a leadership position that in fact was far ahead of its time. He was talking about these things when it was not apparent to most people that it would be necessary to take any action in this area. For example, he was talking about the need to develop photovoltaic cells, for example, and direct solar energy for the creation of less electricity and, by the way, in so doing, creating a vast new industry for America which will enable us to address other issues, such as our balance of trade, balance of trade deficit. If we are developing new sources of energy for a world that is going to be crying out for new sources of energy, that enables us to deal with our own energy situation more intelligently, reduce our dependence upon fossil fuel, create energy alternatively, and at the same time produce a product that will be desired by virtually every other country in the world. We have an opportunity, in other words, to take a leadership position here in a new industrial venture that will enable us to accomplish a variety of objectives in a very concise and particular way. And for that I think Vice President Gore deserves a great deal of credit for stepping out in front on this issue and directing the way toward its solutions.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this rule, not because the underlying bill is poor. It is not. But because this rule does not give us an opportunity to insert within the bill language which would allow for a meaningful reduction in the price of pharmaceuticals for American citizens. The bill pretends to allow the reimportation of pharmaceuticals from Canada, where they are available at one-half the price or less than that which they are available for here in the United States. It pretends to do that, but it does not really carry out that objective. It makes an omission, knowingly and wittingly, in that it does not provide for the means by which that importation will take place. For example, the language in the bill leaves open the ability of the pharmaceutical companies in their contracts with the Canadian Government and Canadian distributors to insert contract provisions which will require that the drugs from Canada can only be reimported back into the United States at the highly inflated American price. For example, there is a very popular cholesterol inhibitor which is manufactured by Merck. It is available in Canada for $39. The same amount of exactly the same formulary, from the same company, costs $117 here in the United States. If we are going to do anything to prevent the continued exploitation of American consumers in the price of pharmaceuticals, we have to defeat this rule. This is the only opportunity we have to deal with this issue in this Congress because the majority party has only given us this one opportunity, and it is a sham opportunity. It is a shell. It is empty. It does not accomplish the objective. If we want to do something to reduce the price of pharmaceuticals, the only opportunity we will have to do that is by defeating this rule. The rule must be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my profound appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the work that he has done and the leadership that he has provided on this initiative, along with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking minority member. It has been a profound pleasure to serve on the subcommittee with both of these Members. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill in many respects. The agriculture bill here contains increases in farm conservation and rural development programs. It contains important increases in rural housing, business, and utilities programs that are critical to small communities across the country. In addition, it contains important recognition for the Rural Economic Area Partnership Zone Program. It also includes funding for important agricultural research initiatives. In addition, it contains a little more than $3 billion in critical emergency assistance for farmers and ranchers who have suffered through another year of bad weather and low prices. There is also $138 million for apple farmers struggling to overcome loss of markets and devastating weather that have occurred over the last 3 years. I want to make it clear, that particular provision for specialty crops was originated in this House in the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations and nowhere else. So, for the first time, apple farmers and other growers of specialty crops are going to get recognition for the difficult circumstances under which they operate. This bill is a good bill. It provides assistance for dairy farmers, $1.6 billion in crop losses for all farms all across the country. All farmers are going to benefit from it. So if my colleagues are going to vote for this bill, as I am, vote for it for the agriculture and the rural development provisions in the bill, all of which are exemplary and good. Do not vote for it for the provision on prescription drugs. Because the prescription drug provision in this bill is a shell, it is a fake, it is a sham. It will not provide prescription drugs at reduced prices for any American anywhere. It is designed precisely in that way, to prevent any consideration to reduce prices of pharmaceuticals imported from Canada or anywhere else because the bill fails to recognize the ability of the pharmaceutical companies to insert language that will prevent that from happening. This is a good bill in many respects. However, it leaves to the next Congress the necessity to deal with the issue of the high cost of prescription drugs in America.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for organizing this opportunity for us to pay tribute to a great representative of the American people. The men and women of this House have lost a warm and wonderful colleague. The people of St. Paul and Minnesota have lost a passionate and powerfully effective advocate. And the people of America have lost a very model of what a Member of this Congress should and ought to be. Bruce Vento was all of that and more. I had the privilege of serving with him for 6 years on both the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Resources. In that experience, I learned a great deal from him about the Nation's banking system and our need to protect and preserve soundness and security within that system, and although I thought I knew a great deal about the environment and America's natural places, I learned more than I ever thought was possible from listening to Bruce and traveling with him. My first term here in the Congress, he organized a trip as chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks of the Committee on Resources into the Bob Marshall which is the wildest area in the lower 48 States. After a day of traveling to a remote camp, we arose early the next morning and rode 10 miles on horseback and then later in the day another 10 miles on foot to a very remote lake on the edge of the Cascade Mountains. In that experience with Bruce and members of the Forest Service, I learned a great deal about America's wild places and the need to protect and preserve them. And I learned them from someone who as a biologist was fortified with the knowledge that made his advocacy as a conservationist and a naturalist even more effective. Bruce Vento was, yes, a great representative for the people that he served and for all of the people of this Nation, but I think fundamentally he was a teacher. In everything that he did, he sought the opportunity to expand knowledge, his own as well as those around him. Anyone who had the opportunity to spend any time with him whatsoever, engaged in conversation with him, learned a great deal about a myriad variety of subjects on which he was very, very knowledgeable. We have lost a dear friend, a good colleague, a strong advocate. I would hope that at a time not far from this moment, this Congress would turn its attention toward designating some appropriate place in this country among the wild areas, among the natural areas of America, to name in honor of the service of Bruce Vento to the people of Minnesota and to the people of America.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the Republic of China on Taiwan has emerged as a major economic power throughout the world. Much of this economic success is attributable to the efforts of Taiwan's leaders who understand that a strong economy is necessary for true political progress and reform. The Republic of China has now become a true democracy with several strong political parties. Earlier this year, the people of Taiwan elected as President Mr. Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party. His election underscored the vitality and diversity of Taiwan's democratic form of government. Like his predecessor, former President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen continues to seek a proper role for the Republic of China in the international community. At the same time, President Chen also seeks a dialogue with the People's Republic of China. While the pace of this dialogue may evolve slowly, President Chen will continue to work with his countrymen to transform Taiwan into a high tech island that will be seen worldwide as a successful model for emerging democracies. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to show our admiration to our friends in the Republic of China by congratulating them on their forthcoming National Day.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) very much. I thank him particularly for organizing this special order today and giving us all an opportunity to talk about an issue that is important to the gentleman, important to me, important to many of the Members of this House, and I think important to all Americans. That is, the quality of our natural environment, and particularly the convergence of that issue with another one that is also critically important, the issue of energy, the issue of the availability and the use of energy in the United States currently, and as we foresee the availability of energy here in our country and the use of those energy resources on into the future. The convergence of these two issues is more than coincidental. They are inextricably intertwined, the issue of protecting the environment and the issue of the way we produce energy for our critical energy needs. I watched the debate last night, also. I heard in response to a question on the energy issue the Governor of Texas respond that he felt that it was important for us to deal with the energy issue by expanding drilling and searching for new sources of oil. I would simply point out that that is not going to solve our energy problem. He went on to say that we ought to be drilling in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge, and that is a place where we would obtain significant amounts of oil for our energy future. There are two aspects of that suggestion which deserve attention; first of all, the fragility of that environment. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is in fact one of the most fragile environments on the planet. It is important for us to protect it. In fact, it is an essential obligation on our part to protect that fragile environment. We have here a photograph which I hope the camera would take an opportunity to focus upon so that those of us here in the room, as well as people watching this, can get an idea of what the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge looks like. We can see from the presence of wildlife and the presence of these huge and dramatic mountains and also the presence of the landscape, we can get an impression of the fragility of that landscape. It is important for us to protect fragile environments. It is also important for us to be realistic about our energy needs and where we are going to obtain the energy that we are going to need, both now and in the future. If we were to accept the Texas Governor's, Governor Bush's, recommendation that we drill to the extent that he would like to in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge, what would be the results of that from an energy point of view? The results would be this. The maximum amount of oil that we could draw from the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge would supply the energy needs of the United States for approximately 6 months. So what he is suggesting is ravishing this very sensitive, critical, irreplaceable environment for a 6-months supply of energy needs in our country. Obviously, it is a very foolish notion. Furthermore, the implication that somehow this 6-months supply of oil would in some way supply our energy needs for any significant period into the future is obviously on its face just absurd. So it is important for us to point out the factual circumstances surrounding these issues so that the American people begin to get an understanding of what this issue is all about and the dimensions of this particular debate: a 6-months supply in exchange for the ravishing of this environment. It simply makes no sense. On the other hand, Vice President Gore laid out in some detail an energy plan that will take us where we need to be. Any energy plan that is worthy of the name must have among its components major provisions for energy conservation. We need to conserve more energy. We are simply expending too much energy in our country. We are using it, and much of the way we use it is wasteful. For example, we need to have CAFE standards for vehicles such as the SUVs that are finding their way increasingly on the streets and highways of America. Sometimes I get the impression that people who are driving these vehicles think they are going to be taking a trip across the Kalahari Desert instead of driving around the urban area of Washington, D.C., just as an example. These vehicles, that get about 12 miles to a gallon, are part of the problem, frankly. They are part of the problem because they are consuming precious resources in a very flagrant and sort of careless and unthinking way. So we need to have improved standards for our transportation needs. We need to have improved standards for appliances. We need to have improved standards for energy production facilities. If we do that, we will find that the greatest source of new energy for the United States, both now and in the future, but particularly in the future, the greatest source of our new energy needs, will be from conservation. We will have reduced the amount of fossil fuels that we are producing and thereby extended the life of the known available fossil fuels for our future energy needs. So energy conservation is the principal component of any rational energy plan. In fact, it is the one absolutely essential ingredient of any energy conservation or energy provision plan. We have to conserve. We have to use our energy, the energy that is available to us, much more intelligently and much more carefully than we have in the past. I would also like to call attention to some of the issues that the gentleman was talking about a moment ago with regard to the environmental legacy in Texas. Let me just read them here, because I think they are very illustrative of the way in which this particular Governor has husbanded the resources of this particular State of Texas. The Governor has had two terms down there. He has had an opportunity to establish the record. Let us take a look at the record and see what it looks like. We see first of all that Houston is ranked number one for the second year as America's smoggiest city. That is an honor that I think not many cities would like to have. Houston is the worst city in America for smog. Texas ranks number one in the number of chemicals polluting its air, and the effect of that on the people of Texas is, I am sure, not very welcome. We certainly do not want to see that kind of thing happen across the country. Texas ranks number one for the amount of toxins released into its atmosphere; again, not an enviable record. In 1997, Texas released over 260 million, 260 million pounds of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere, the number one State in the Nation in that regard, seventh biggest. If Texas were a country, it would be the world's seventh largest national emitter of carbon dioxide; again, not an enviable record. We have here what we are calling double trouble. Since Governor Bush took office, the number of days when Texas cities exceeded Federal ozone standards has doubled. So the record of this particular Governor with regard to his husbanding of the environment in the state of Texas is a very poor one, indeed, and one that I think we would not want to see inflicted upon the American people all across the country. I thank the gentleman very much for the opportunity to participate in this special order on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of our country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this has been unquestionably a very contentious and hard fought process; but the results of it will be welcomed, I think, by every person in the country who cares about America's natural resources. There are a lot of people that made major contributions, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), that built the foundation upon which this bill is constructed. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of our full committee, we need to thank him, particularly, for his thoughtful and gentlemanly leadership. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who has been an outstanding chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and has done an outstanding job in virtually every aspect of his responsibilities. I think of the Everglades and a whole host of other areas where he has made a very lasting and substantial contribution that will be a very important legacy for him and for all of Americans. I want to also thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on our side who made an outstanding contribution to the final provisions of this bill. I think both of these leaders on the Democratic side of the aisle made a major contribution to the preservation of America's natural resources here, and I express my appreciation to them. The bill provides a historic level of funding to protect our parks and natural resources, $3.9 billion more than the current fiscal year. The National Park Service is funded at $1.4 billion. That is $25 million more than the current year. National wildlife refuges are increased by $33 million over last year. Even the National Endowment for the Arts gets a small increase, $7 million over the current fiscal year. Both the National Endowment for the Humanities and Office of Museums and Library Services will receive modest increases. Obviously we must do more in these areas, and we will in the future. The bill also provides $8 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, and people are going to be very grateful for that because the cost of heating homes, offices, and businesses this winter will be less expensive as a result of that provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. The administration and the House Senate negotiators eliminated the most egregious antienvironmental riders, and they scaled back those that remain in the bill. The Land Conservation Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Program provides a historic $12 billion over 6 years for high-priority Federal and State conservation and preservation programs, a wonderful contribution. This proposal actually improves on CARA by getting rid of the environmentally harmful provisions that would have encouraged new offshore drilling, would have allowed coastal funding to be used for environmentally damaging activities, and impose burdensome new restrictions on Federal land acquisitions. All that has been taken out in this terrific piece of legislation. Twelve distinguished environmental conservation and historic preservation groups recognize the importance of this bill when they said as follows: ``This important and historic conservation initiative represents a major contribution to the effort to protect what remains of our irreplaceable natural heritage before it is lost.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues that, in the 6 years that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has chaired this subcommittee, he has done an outstanding job. I can only thank him for that on behalf of my constituents and all the people of this country. I only regret that his party put in place these term limitations because the kind of leadership that he has provided has been absolutely outstanding, and he is going to be a great loss. I know he is going to continue to be on the committee, I certainly hope so; and we will have the benefit of his wisdom in that sense. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), our ranking member on the subcommittee, for the outstanding work that he has done, for the hard-fought contentious battles that he was engaged in to make certain that this bill is the kind of bill that every Member of this House can be proud of and every American citizen can be grateful for.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his kind consideration. I also want to express my respect and appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Packard), chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full committee as well. I am a great admirer of their work and certainly of their personal qualities. This bill, however, is a different matter all together. The bill suffers from serious and dramatic deficiencies. First of all, with regard to the need to bring our country more closely into a condition of energy independence, the bill fails. It is $32 million less than what the President requested for alternative energy and energy conservation. Now, I wish that the President had requested more than that, but the very least that this bill could do is to meet the request laid out by the President of the United States and recognize the need to move our country closer to a situation of energy independence. We are now importing 53 percent of the oil that we use every single day for transportation and for heating of our homes, businesses, and industries. This is a deplorable situation. This is a matter of strategic interest and strategic concern. I can only conclude that this is a conscious decision. Why? Because it is not a matter of money. The bill adds $2 billion to that which was in the bill when it left this House. So it is not a question of funding. It is a question of establishing priorities. We could use a substantial portion of that $2 billion to move us away from our dependence upon people who wish us ill in the Middle East. In fact, this bill plays into the hands of several leaders who wish this country ill, Middle Eastern leaders who control the oil spigot, because it increases our dependence on foreign oil. That is one of the deficiencies. Another deficiency is that the bill fails to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and fails to authorize a strategic home heating oil reserve for the northeastern part of this country. We have heard that those provisions may be in another bill, another bill coming out of another subcommittee. But at this moment, we have no reason to have any confidence in those pronouncements. Why? Because that subcommittee, the Interior Subcommittee, the conferees of that subcommittee are allegedly meeting somewhere in this Capitol, somewhere, allegedly. Now I say allegedly because I am one of the conferees. I am one of the conferees, and I do not know where that conference is meeting, nor do almost all of the other conferees, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. These meetings, if they are being held, are being held clandestinely. This is a bill that suffers seriously in its deficiencies, and for those reasons, it ought to be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman just said, and I think that that is a very good procedure and the right direction, but is it not true that the bill appropriates an additional $2 billion for a variety of unknown works, and that it is $32 million below the requests for energy conservation and alternative energy as requested by the President; is not that true?

Mr. HINCHEY. But it is $32 million less than the President requested.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this bill. I want to say, first of all, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to find myself criticizing the appropriations process at this late stage of this Congress. Both the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), have been great gentlemen and efficient and effective leaders throughout the process. However, now, at the end of the session, we find ourselves in a position where all that has gone before us is now in the process of being corrupted and lost. Why? Because the normal procedure of conference committees meeting together and resolving important differences between the House bill and the Senate bill has been abandoned. It has been abandoned and in its place we have people who are in some cases faceless and unknown making decisions that affect the constituencies of virtually every Member in this House. Furthermore, important amendments which were adopted on the floor of this House have been and are in danger of being removed from specific appropriations bills of specific subcommittees as a result of this corruption of the normal and effective process. That is something that I do not believe every Member is aware of, and I think they would be deeply concerned to the extent that they become aware of it. So the motion to instruct that we have before us is in every sense a sensible and reasonable initiative. It simply says the conference committees ought to meet. Decisions about specialty crops which are important to a number of Members here, apples and other specialty crops, decisions affecting those specialty crops ought to be made by the elected Members of the House of Representatives in conference. Specific decisions with regard to the importation of prescription drugs, which is an important part of this agricultural bill, ought to be made by the elected representatives of the House in conference, duly appointed. That is not happening under the present system and under the present process that we have. Those decisions and others are being made by people apparently who are not elected and to the extent that we have elected people in the room, it is only a handful of the normal conferees. Now, that is not the way we ought to be doing business. These are critically important issues. We were elected to come here in this House of Representatives and resolve these issues on behalf of the people of the United States from the point of view of our various constituencies. We are being denied that right. Now, I know that the chairman of the subcommittee does not condone this. I know that the chairman of the committee as well as the subcommittee, neither of those chairmen condone this process. But the process is occurring nevertheless. And the only way that we can change this process, the only way that we can alter it, the only way that we can get back on the right and appropriate track in this particular context is to pass this motion to instruct.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me address one of the consequences of this bill, which I hope is unintended but would nevertheless occur. Many of the hazardous waste sites in New York, for example, and in many other States particularly up and down the Eastern Seaboard, were caused or created in whole or in part by small business which are nevertheless controlled by organized crime. We have organized crime dumpers who have been responsible for most of the toxic waste dump sites in the State of New York and in a number of other places up and down the Eastern Seaboard. This legislation I hope unintentionally would exempt those organized crime cartels who are in many cases the sources of the contamination and who are in almost all cases at least substantially in part responsible for transporting the waste from its places of origin to its place of rest, at least temporary rest, in these toxic and hazardous waste dump sites. This is a bad bill. It is bad and these bad provisions are there, largely because it has not had the opportunity to be examined and to be seen in its true light. So let us see it for what it is and defeat it because of what it is.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Patrick Moynihan has been valued and will continue to be valued for his wisdom on a kaleidoscopic range of subjects, for his prescient and nuanced analysis of social problems, his persistent and eloquent defense of government support for the poor and the disadvantaged, long after that position had become unfashionable; for his role in international affairs, as a participant and observer; as courtly diplomat and passionate defender of democracy. His example, his independence of mind, his indifference to fashion, his rejection of cant and conventional wisdom, is perhaps the best demonstration of why his favorite cause, the dignity of the free individual soul, matters so much. Perhaps the proudest achievement of our country and our democratic system is that we allow people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan to speak their minds and rise to power. His particular legacy to New York lies in his understanding that the lives of free individuals can be enhanced by the beauty and grandeur of all that surrounds them: the landscape, the streetscape, and the history that underlies them. So he made it his mission to see that our home, New York, would retain its distinguished features and add to its beauty and eloquence. He committed himself to enhancing everyday life and to landmarks that spoke of the dignity of ordinary people, the efforts of the forgotten, and the conviction that every person matters. So throughout his Senate career, he worked to protect the landmarks of the women's rights movement in Seneca Falls, because he knew that the more celebrated proclamations of liberty in Philadelphia rang a little hollow for more than half the American people. He worked equally hard to give Federal recognition to the Erie and Champlain Canals in New York, because he knows that the working folk who dug the ditches and piloted the boats, whose names we have forgotten, were more responsible for the westward expansion of our country and the opportunities it opened than the more celebrated frontier explorers. He is working now to protect Governors Island in New York Harbor, the island most people ignored because its work was the daily grind of protecting the harbor, the overlooked work that sustains us. He has directed Federal funds to the protection of an ordinary businessman's house in Buffalo, because that little known man, Darwin Martin, had the daring and foresight to build a place of no pretension, but great beauty, by hiring an unregarded architect named Frank Lloyd Wright. Pat Moynihan insisted that public spaces where ordinary people pass daily and conduct their mundane business should remind them of their dignity and the soaring ideals of the American endeavor. So he insisted that the New York courthouses should be fine, even grand places, and he devoted himself to the rebirth of Pennsylvania Station as a place of splendor, a worthy replacement for the building we lost when people believed that public places should be drab and functional. Of course, here in Washington, we know that it was Pat Moynihan more than any other person who saw to it that Pennsylvania Avenue was also reborn, and again became a place of eloquence and beauty, appropriate to its place as the main boulevard of our Capital. Pat Moynihan made his home in New York, appropriately at the crossroads of the ordinary and the ideal, a tiny rural settlement named in honor of a classical poet, the Hamlet of Pindar's Corners. His home there at the same time was a modest rural farmhouse and a Greek temple, a common 19th century architectural style in upstate New York, but one rarely seen today. His blending of the common, the human, the mundane, and of the highest ideals and greatest dignity, is a reflection of America at its best, what this country is all about. Nothing could be more appropriate for the man who best reflects that same vision, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Mr. Speaker, Pat Moynihan has always appeared larger than life. From the day he arrived in the Senate as a freshman in 1977, he was not just another Senator. He has always stood apart. He is one of the few Senators of whom it can be said that his name is just as powerful, just as important, whether the title ``Senator'' is attached or not. After most of us leave Congress, the world has much less interest in what we have to say. But that will not be the case with Pat. When he speaks-- whether he is Senator Moynihan, Professor Moynihan, or just Daniel Patrick Moynihan--the world listens. He has been valued, and will continue to be valued, for his wisdom on a kaleidoscopic range of subjects--for his prescient and nuanced analysis of social problems, his persistent and eloquent defense of government support for the poor and disadvantaged, long after that position had become unfashionable, for his role in international affairs as participant and observer, as courtly diplomat and passionate defender of democracy and freedom. His own example--his independence of mind, his indifference to fashion, his rejection of cant and conventional wisdom--is perhaps the best demonstration of why his favorite cause--the dignity of the free individual soul--matters so much. Perhaps the proudest achievement of our country and our democratic system is that we allow people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan to speak their minds, and rise to power. Any list of his achievements will be long. But we New Yorkers have some more particular and parochial reasons to thank him and to honor him, and reasons to be proud that we sent him to the Senate. He was born in Oklahoma, of course, and spent much of his professional life before he came to the Senate in Massachusetts. But we New Yorkers embraced him as he embraced us, and we will always be proud to count him as one of us. His particular legacy to New York lies in his understanding that the lives of free individuals can be enhanced by the beauty and grandeur of all that surrounds them--the landscape, the streetscape, and the history that underlies them. So he made it his mission to see that our home, New York, would retain its distinguished features and add to its beauty and elegance. It is telling that Pat Moynihan did not put his greatest efforts into the more obvious treasures of the State, or into monuments to the great and famous. instead, he committed himself to enhancing everyday life, and into landmarks that spoke of the dignity of ordinary people, the efforts of the forgotten, and the conviction that every person matters. So throughout his Senate career he worked to protect the landmarks of the women's rights movement in Seneca Falls, because he knew that the more celebrated proclamations of liberty in Philadelphia rang a little hollow for more than half the American people. He has worked equally hard to give federal recognition to the Erie and Champlain Canals in New York, because he knows that the working folk who dug the ditches and piloted the boats whose names we have forgotten were more responsible for the westward expansion of our country and the opportunities it opened than the more celebrated frontier explorers. He is working now to protect Governors Island in New York Harbor--the island most people ignored because its work was the daily grind of protecting the harbor, the overlooked work that sustains us. He has directed federal funds to the protection of an ordinary businessman's house in Buffalo because that little known man, Darwin Martin, had the daring and foresight to build a place of no pretension but great beauty by hiring an unregarded architect named Frank Lloyd Wright. Pat Moynihan has not just looked to protect our history, however. In a time when public buildings and public spaces were given little regard, and their design was contracted to the low bidder Pat Moynihan insisted that public spaces where ordinary people pass daily and conduct their mundane business should remind them of their dignity and the soaring ideals of the American endeavor. So he insisted that the new courthouses in New York should be fine, even grand places, and he devoted himself to the rebirth of Pennsylvania Station as a place of splendor, a worthy replacement for the building we lost when people believed that public spaces should be drab and functional. Of course here in Washington we know that it was Pat Moynihan, more than any other person, who saw to it that Pennsylvania Avenue was also reborn, and again became a place of elegance and beauty appropriate to its place as the main boulevard of our Capital. I believe that New Yorkers and the Nation will thank him for his work on restoring aesthetics to community life for a long time to come. Typically, though, Pat Moynihan did not focus on just a few great buildings and monumental spaces. One of his finest achievements, in my view, was his imaginative and inventive idea for financing what he called ``enhancements'' with highway money--parks, gardens, beautification, historic restoration, and other improvements of the landscape and the community, available to every place touched by a federally funded highway. Most of these enhancements are small changes in ordinary communities, changes that touch the life and lift the spirits of all those who see them and use them. Most people don't know that Pat Moynihan had anything to do with them, but they may be one of his most lasting legacies to our Nation. Pat Moynihan made his home in New York, appropriately at the crossroads of the ordinary and the ideal--a tiny rural settlement named in honor of a classical poet, the Hamlet of Pindar's Corners. His home there was at the same time a modest rural farmhouse and a Greek temple, a common nineteenth century architectural style in upstate New York, but one rarely seen today. This blending of the common, the human, the mundane, and of the highest ideals and greatest dignity is a reflection of America at its best, what this country is all about. Nothing could be more appropriate for the man who best reflects that same vision, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise and ask the House to support us in designating the building of the United States Postal Service, which is located at 307 Main Street in Johnson City, New York, as the James W. McCabe, Sr. Post Office Building. In doing so, I want to express my appreciation to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and others who are supporting us in this endeavor. I thank them very much. Jim McCabe, Sr. served a total of 17 years in New York State government. As a former Mayor of Johnson City and a member of the New York State legislature, Jim served his community and he served his entire State with great distinction. Many members of the New York congressional delegation served with Jim during his six terms in the assembly and remember him for his dedication, for his kindness, and, most of all, I think, for his great strong sense of integrity. His leadership was always based upon his conscience, not on the polls and not on party. His intelligent leadership earned him the friendship and respect of all those who were privileged to serve with him. Jim McCabe died in 1999, and naming the Johnson City Post Office after him would permanently honor his memory in the community that he served so well. This tribute is particularly appropriate since Jim's father served as the postmaster in Johnson City. Jim McCabe was born in Johnson City, New York, on April 17, 1917. He graduated cum laude from the University of Notre Dame. He then attended the State University of New York at Albany for a semester to complete his teaching requirements, and later received a master's degree in education. He did further graduate study at Syracuse University, at Colgate University, and also Ithaca College. He was a devoted family man and was married for 56 years to his wife Margaret, and together they had seven children. Jim served with the Army Air Corps from 1943 through 1945. He was a World War II veteran. He was stationed in the South Pacific with a B-24 bomber crew. And for his service there, he was awarded the Air Medal with an oak leaf cluster. Jim taught Latin and English at Johnson City High School when he was discharged from the service from 1946 to 1973. He also served as a counselor at that school. From 1963 to 1971, Jim was the Mayor of Johnson City. As mayor, Jim was a strong proponent of the construction of New York Route 17, soon to be redesignated as part of the interstate highway system, Interstate 86. The construction of that Route 17 brought economic development to the area. At a time when the region was dumping raw sewage into the Susquehanna River, Jim helped establish the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewer Treatment Plant, which still serves the people of Broome County. And it was his foresight and leadership on this important environmental issue that made that possible. From 1970 to 1971, he served as a member of the Executive Committee of the New York State Conference of Mayors. Jim McCabe also served six terms in the New York State assembly. That service was from 1973 until 1982. During that time, he was chairman of the Assembly Committee on Local Government and also chair of the Legislative Commission on State and Local Relations. As a member of the State Assembly's Committee on Mental Health, Education and on the Rules Committee and its Task Force on the Disabled, Jim was a passionate advocate on behalf of the mentally disabled, and he became known all across New York State for that service. In fact, for his efforts, Jim received the Human Service Award in 1977. The award was presented by then New York City Mayor Abraham Beame on behalf of New York City and the Advisory Board of the New York City Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services. In the same year, Jim McCabe received the Legislator of the Year Award from the New York State Personnel and Guidance Association, additionally for his work in mental health. Jim was named Legislator of the Year in 1981 and 1982 by the New York State Association of Counties. He also received the Friends of Education Award in 1982 from the New York Education Association. After his service in the State Assembly, and in a way as a capstone of his entire service in both State and local government, Jim served for 5 years on the New York State Board of Regents. The New York State Board of Regents, of course, is the board which oversees the entire educational system within New York. It was a very appropriate way for Jim McCabe to end his public service, in the sense that throughout his years, in local government and in the State legislature, and wherever he worked, with young people and old everywhere, his educational skills served him in good stead. Jim, first and foremost, was an educator. And everyone with whom he came in contact benefitted from his skills, from his experience, from his wide breadth of service both here at home and abroad. It is, Mr. Speaker, with a great sense of pride that I offer this legislation to the Congress of the United States to name the Post Office Building in Johnson City as the James W. McCabe, Sr. Post Office.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of the misguided moralism that is so replete in this District of Columbia appropriations bill. What is at issue here is public health. It has been clearly demonstrated that by providing sterile syringes and needles to drug addicts, we cut back dramatically on the incidence of HIV and AIDS. Fifty percent of the AIDS-positive people in the District of Columbia contracted that condition by using contaminated needles. Seventy-five percent of the women in the District of Columbia who are HIV-positive got that way as a result of contaminated needles. Seventy-five percent of the children who are HIV-positive in the District of Columbia got that way as a result of contaminated needles. This is a public health issue. My colleagues ought to poke their noses out of it. Let the District run their own business. They are condemning people to contract HIV and AIDS by proposing this amendment if it passes. More people will become HIV-positive and more people will die of AIDS as a result of this amendment if it passes. It should be defeated.