Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to strike from the bill language which is antienvironmental in its intention. It is a rider which is contrary to environmental protection, which I believe has been inappropriately placed in the bill. First of all, this language would make it impossible for the EPA to conduct activities which are designed to find out what exactly exists in certain areas that are contaminated, in river, lakes, streams and the oceans in and adjacent to the country. The importance of this is simply to discover what threat these sediments pose. In many instances, these sediments are cancer-causing agents such as polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metals, and other agents. The intention of the amendment is to make it impossible for the EPA to proceed with its program to remediate these bodies of water, I believe, which are in dire need of that remediation. In some cases, this situation has been carried on for decades. So the purpose of the amendment is to strike that language, and also to strike language which involves the issue of arsenic in drinking water. This language would prevent the EPA from establishing standards with regard to arsenic in drinking water. I need not point out to the Members of the House that arsenic is indeed a particularly vitriolic poison. In fact, it occurs in many water bodies and public water supplies in a number of places around the country. So the EPA, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect public health, the EPA is establishing these standards in order to protect the environment, but even more particularly, in order to protect public health. This language prevents us from dredging and from finding out what is in the bottom of water bodies around the country and taking appropriate remedial action. It also prevents us from establishing standards with regard to arsenic in drinking water. I ask the majority of the Members of the House to join me in striking this anti-environmental rider from this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) be allowed to control 5 of the 10 minutes I have been allotted.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this is not a regional argument. The issue is bureaucratic bungling by computer. If your area is not being hurt today, it most certainly will be tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years particularly, the chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD has done an admirable job in ensuring that additional funds were allocated for the Veterans Administration, especially and particularly for veterans health care. In spite of his best efforts, however, many veterans in certain parts of the country are getting inadequate health care nevertheless. That is as the result solely and completely of a program administered within the Department of Veterans Affairs known as the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation program, otherwise known as VERA. VERA, in spite of its name, is wholly inequitable. Under VERA, we have seen cuts in veterans health care in many parts of the country, particularly throughout New England, New York, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, the far West, and other places as well. In addition, we have seen cuts in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, California, in addition to other States. This amendment would provide that no money be allowed for the administration of this program.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment in accordance with the submission that is at the desk.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there are 14 States, some 30 sites that will be affected by the language in this amendment, 30 places around the country which are heavily contaminated with heavy metals and toxic contaminants of various kinds which the EPA will not be able to investigate, to find out what is there, to develop a technology and a program for remediation if this language stays in the bill. This language is inappropriate in this appropriations bill. It ought to be taken out. I ask everyone to join us in support of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would add $4.77 million to the budget of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. OFHEO, as it is known, is an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was created by Congress in 1992 to oversee the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest government sponsored enterprises. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies that were chartered by Congress to encourage homeownership by creating a secondary market for mortgage debt. They have been very successful in this endeavor. They own or guarantee nearly half of all home mortgages and almost 80 percent of middle-class mortgages. While they are not Federal agencies, the two housing GSEs enjoy some advantages that other private financial institutions do not. Nevertheless, as a result they are able to issue debt at rates that rival the Treasury because the market presumes that their securities are backed by the U.S. Government. Although the law specifically states that this is not the case, Fannie and Freddie are, in reality, too big to fail. They are exposed to more than $2 trillion in credit risk from the mortgages they guarantee. They are also subject to $850 million of interest rate risk from the whole loans and mortgage-backed securities they hold in their portfolios. Both GSEs are adequately capitalized, well managed and are in excellent financial condition. Times are good and homeownership rates are at all-time record levels as a result. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be commended for their role in this success. But we should not forget that we are entering a period of interest rate volatility. The Federal Reserve has raised the prime rate five times during the past few months and it seems poised to do so again. As a result, the GSEs which are exposed to considerable interest rate risk could be vulnerable to a slowdown in the economy. I do not mean to suggest that they are in any trouble or that they would not be able to weather a downturn, but there have been times in the past when both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have suffered financial difficulties. Indeed, this is why Congress created this regulatory body in the first place, to ensure the safe and sound operation of the GSEs in troubled times. OFHEO will soon round out its regulatory program when it implements a risk-based capital standard that has been 6 years in the making. After completing a thorough analysis of its needs in light of the $2 trillion housing finance market it oversees, OFHEO requested $26.77 million from Congress this year. While this is a substantial increase over last year's budget, the extra funds will be used for some very necessary purposes. They include hiring additional examiners to ensure compliance with the new capital rules; train staff to understand the complicated financial transactions and risk management techniques used by the GSEs, to upgrade technology, including the purchase of faster computers and sophisticated risk management software, and also to implement a series of organizational reforms recommended by OFHEO's outside auditors. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this amendment as budget neutral. The funds for OFHEO's budget come from semiannual assessments on the GSEs, subject to Congressional approval. No offset is necessary to approve this increase. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are not opposing this amendment. They believe that OFHEO should have the resources it needs to do its job. They know that the investment in safety and soundness pays dividends in market confidence. Investors need to know that the GSEs are adequately capitalized and soundly managed. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to cast a vote for safety and soundness and support this amendment

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a lot of that rhetoric that ought to be corrected, and I think we have an opportunity to do so. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number words. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the story of the propagation of tobacco use in our country by the tobacco companies is a sad and sorry one. We all witnessed the spectacle of executives of the major tobacco companies coming before committees of this Congress and claiming that tobacco was not addictive and that, furthermore, they did nothing to make it addictive. We now know, of course, that is all untrue. They knew from the very beginning that tobacco was addictive, and they were manipulating their product to make it as addictive as possible. At the same time, they were engaging in a number of activities which were designed to propagate the use of tobacco among young people and as young as possible so that this habit could be ingrained in them throughout their lives, which inevitably would be made and have been made much shorter as a result of the tobacco product. One of the ways in which the tobacco companies propagated the use of their product was to give free cigarettes to service people. I was in the service myself. I saw that happen. As a result of that, a lot of young men and women, too, became addicted to tobacco products as a result of the availability of these products, and even the free availability of these products from the tobacco companies. It is only fair and reasonable that this government have the opportunity to recover health care costs that have been incurred by the Veterans Administration tending to veterans who have had their lives shortened and have been made extremely ill during those lives as a result of the use of these tobacco products, particularly and especially cigarettes. That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to provide $4 million so that the Justice Department of the United States can engage in legal action to recover some of the costs associated with the health care costs from addictive tobacco use in veterans. Those costs amount to about $1 billion a year, each and every year. It is only fair and reasonable that we try to recover those costs. That is what this amendment would do. Now, we all know, too, that this budget is deficient, not as a result of any deficiencies with the chairman but as a result of the low number set by the leadership. I think the chairman has done a very good job within the construct and the constraints within which he has had to operate. But that does not solve the problem at hand. The problem at hand is a very serious one, and we have the means to solve it simply by allowing a very small amount of money in the construct of this particular budget, and certainly the overall budget, a mere $4 million to be made available to the Justice Department so that they might pursue appropriate litigation to recover perhaps as much as $1 billion a year, year after year after year, to tend to the health care needs of American veterans whose lives have been direly, sorely affected and, in many cases, have been and will continue to be made much shorter as a result of the addiction to tobacco products, particularly cigarettes, induced knowingly, willingly, and intentionally by the tobacco companies. Now, why would we not do that? I simply do not understand why this Congress would not provide that small amount of money to pursue a rightful legal action in order to recover funds which are appropriately recoverable to take care of a very obvious need, a need which can be addressed by the use of these funds if this litigation is allowed to go forward. We know the litigation is likely to be successful. How do we know that? Because we have seen litigation similarly pursued by the several States, and in each and every case the States have been successful, as have recently individuals been successful in bringing legal actions against the tobacco companies for the illnesses caused by the use of tobacco, induced by these same tobacco companies. So this is something that we ought to do. It is a reasonable, sensible and moderate proposal which will bring forth huge benefits to the taxpayers of our country; but most immediately and most importantly it will bring forth huge benefits in additional health care to the veterans in veterans hospitals across America. Let us pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in a good relationship. Reclaiming my time, I am very interested in maintaining good relationships. I am very interested in maintaining comity. I am very interested in maintaining respect. I am also very interested in maintaining respect for the work of our Members of the House. And I mean no personal attack in any way on the gentleman who offered the amendment. However, I believe that there is an insincere result that comes about as a result of it. If there had been a sincere interest in addressing the obvious needs, health care needs of Native Americans, then that attempt could have been made during the full committee. The gentleman is a member of the subcommittee. It could have been made during the subcommittee; it was not. If there had been a sincere interest in addressing the needs of Native Americans in terms of their health care, that could have been done during the full committee by the gentleman who offered this amendment; it was not. If there had been a sincere concern for the legitimate health care needs of Native Americans, this amendment that we have now could have come before us in the context of this debate which has been going on for some time, and a great many others who have offered amendments have found offsets for those amendments. In fact, every single amendment that came from this side of the House had an offset to it. It does not take a great deal of ingenuity to find offsets for your amendments if you sincerely wish to find them outside of attacking the work that others have done before you. We had here earlier today an honest, sincere, heartfelt debate on an important issue. As a result of that debate, this House decided to provide 22 million additional dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for Museums around the country. I believe that the Members of this House did so sincerely because they recognized the value of NEA, NEH, and museums. They recognized their value particularly as educational vehicles and as the harbors of culture within our society. And I believe the Members of this House, the majority of them wanted to do everything they could within the confines of a very restricted budget, artificially so, I might add, but, nevertheless, restricted budget, to do whatever they could to enhance the arts, the humanities, and museums. That issue was debated sincerely, aggressively, intelligently, enthusiastically; and in the final result $22 million went for the arts, humanities, and museums. Now, at this late hour, we have an attempt to take that victory, not only from the Members of the House who voted for it, but from all the millions of Americans who will benefit as a result of that additional funding for these worthy subjects, and to do it in a way that I believe does dishonor to this House. It is one thing to stand here and fight for the things that you believe in. We all do that. It is another thing to do it in a way that undercuts and undermines the success of others in the context of what goes on here in these debates, and I believe that is what we are witnessing. Yes, I think that there is an element of cynicism that comes about as a result of this action that is proposed for us to take at this moment. I think that there is an element of insincerity that reeks in this House as a result of the effort that has been placed before us which we are being asked to embrace. And I think it would be a serious mistake for the comity that we all seek, for the good judgment that we reach for, that the good relations that we hope to maintain, and the good results above all that we hope to achieve as a result of these debates. I would hope that the gentleman would recognize some of this and that he would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has exempted his monument.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The first point I want to make is that land cannot be ``grabbed'' if it is already owned. All of these lands that are being designated and have been designated as national monuments are owned by the people of the United States, held in trust by the Federal Government and managed by the Department of the Interior. The amendment that we have before us here today would prevent, interestingly enough, Federal funds from being spent on nine fairly recently designated national monuments. Now, the designation of national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act, passed by the Congress, of course, allows for the protection of natural and cultural resources that are under threat or need for preservation or protection. The point has been made that 14 presidents since 1906 have used this authority. Lands designated as monuments are already owned by the American public. Fifty million Americans enjoy these monuments every year. Monument designation provides permanent protection for long-term conservation of areas that are critical to the protection of resources and enjoyment by the public. This antienvironmental rider targets nine recent monuments that were created to protect unique national resources for all future generations to enjoy. A prohibition on spending funds on these monuments does not change their legal status as monuments but would prevent any ongoing spending within the monument areas. Visitors would still visit these lands, but this would prevent Federal maintenance and appropriate actions taken. The Department of the Interior would not be able to provide law enforcement service to visitors or maintain roads, thereby threatening visitor safety. The Department would be unable to process grazing applications for the lands or manage hunting or other suitable uses to public enjoyment. This would hurt local people and local economies. It would hurt them the most by preventing outfitters and guides from going into these monuments and not allowing management of suitable uses. There is one other interesting aspect to this particular amendment that is before us now. It would prevent spending on nine monuments, but it would not prevent spending on a particular monument in the State of Utah.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I doubt seriously if there are very many people in this House who do not recognize the insincerity and the cynicism that underlies this amendment. If it had been true that there was a genuine concern---- Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not interested in striking funding for that monument or for the other nine that they would strike either. We believe that these national monuments, belonging to all the people of the country, deserve to be protected and that the 50 million people who visit them ought to be treated properly and fairly. My colleague would deny then that opportunity.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the more unfortunate aspects of the present majority's rule of this House over the last several years has been this propensity to attach antienvironmental riders to appropriations bills. Essentially that is what we have here today in this particular context. Seven years ago, the administration embarked upon a plan to improve environmental management in the Columbia River Basin. All of the land affected by this plan, by the way, and very importantly, is public land. It is not private land. It is public land. It is land owned by all of the people of the country. So my constituents in New York as well as every constituent of every Member of this House has a stake in the development of this plan to manage important public resources in the Columbia River basin. That project has gone forward. It has gone forward very carefully, very intelligently, and in a very open way. An environmental impact statement has been produced. A supplemental environmental impact statement has been produced. All of the activities here have been based on good, sound, responsible science. The intention is to improve habitat in the Columbia River, to improve habitat for bull trout, for salmon, to improve recreational resources, to improve timber resources, and to have a comprehensive plan which will stand and which will allow people all across the spectrum, from recreational uses all across the spectrum to extracted uses to be able to use this public land in the most effective and efficient way. Now we have this amendment to the Dicks amendment which would block implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forest watersheds and endangered species. It would do so by attempting to superimpose an aspect of the small business law onto the environmental law, to take one piece of a law and inappropriately attach it to a situation where it does not belong, has no standing, has no meaning and makes no sense. Therefore alone, for that reason alone, just on the structural basis of it, the technical aspects of it, this amendment ought to be rejected. But it ought to be rejected on much more solid ground and much more important ground, and that is this, we are here discussing the future of a very important part of America. Again, I emphasize, a part owned by all of the citizens of this country, held in trust by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies within the Department of the Interior. Now, everybody has a responsibility to make sure that this works and this antienvironmental rider inappropriately attached to this bill ought to be very soundly and solidly rejected.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to let this opportunity go by without having said a few words in favor of this amendment. I do so in the context of my great respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, recognizing that with the allocation that was provided him he has done the best work that could possibly be done by anyone on this bill. Within the parameters he was allowed to operate, he has provided us with the best bill that could be provided within those parameters. However, I think that there is something that we all would like to do beyond that which has been done for the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. These are both very important entities for the American people. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that many of the Members of the House availed themselves of a very unusual opportunity last night, and that was to go over to the Kennedy Center to see a live performance. It happened to be a performance of a great American novel, to Kill a Mocking Bird, a wonderful and striking story. Many people went over, and I am sure those who went did enjoy it. Now today, we find ourselves unable to provide the kind of funding that a civilized society such as ours ought to provide for the enhancement of arts and humanities within our country. The amount of money that is being asked for in this amendment is, frankly, very modest. Nevertheless, even with that very modest amount of money, a very substantial difference can be made. I would just point to one particular program that Bill Ivey has produced within the NEA, and I think everyone would agree that he is an outstanding chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. I refer to the Challenge America program. Now, this is a program that is designed to expand the NEA outreach initiative, and they are doing so all across the country. The NEA is reaching out into small towns and villages and counties in the most rural areas and in urban areas as well. They are providing people in those areas with opportunities to see important aspects of American and world art, aspects which they would not have the opportunity to see without this initiative. The Challenge America program, reaching out into communities so that young people, young and old, can have the opportunity to see ballets, to see theater, to see a display of important art that is in the Smithsonian. They are taking their show on the road all across America, but that program will never see itself fulfilled, and many communities across the country will be denied the opportunity to see the kind of art that is available in our museums, as well as the great musical productions that are available and dance productions that are available, they will not be able to see them without additional funding that would go to the Challenge America program. So for arts education, to enhance our cultural heritage, to give art programs for youth at risk, to provide access to the arts in underserved areas and for community arts partnerships, the Challenge America program is a model and we ought to be funding it. So if we pass this amendment, if we provide this modest additional funding for the NEA and the NEH, a great many people around our country will have the opportunity to enrich their lives and enhance their experience that they would not have without it. So, Mr. Chairman, with particular and deep respect for the work that our chairman has accomplished, I respectfully hope that the majority of the Members of this House will adopt this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment says they cannot spend Federal funds for nine monuments, and those monuments are located in California, in Arizona, in Colorado, Oregon, Washington; but they can spend money on the monument in Utah. The budget that we have here today would spend, in fact, $5.3 million on a visitor center for a national monument in the State of Utah. I believe that is located in the district of the sponsor of this amendment, which would prevent spending on these nine monuments in these other States. This is an interesting feature of this particular amendment. Now, I have always thought that cynicism is a personality trait to be avoided, but one does not have to be terribly cynical to make the observation that something very odd and unusual is going on here. It is okay to spend money on the monument in my district, but it is not okay to spend money on the monuments in people's other districts in other States. That strikes me as being very strange.