Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, and I very much appreciate, as always, having the opportunity to work with him in a constructive way.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to recognize what is happening here and to gauge the implications of it, to understand them and all of their ramifications, because they are broad and deep. First of all, by striking this language, $9 million, which is appropriated in this bill to the Department of the Interior, will now be spent by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of the Interior will simply be a pass-through. The Department of the Interior will have no say whatsoever in how that money is spent. It will be spent only by the Army Corps of Engineers for their purposes. Mr. Chairman, that is contrary to everything that this Congress has done up to this point with regard to this project. Our chairman has just outlined very carefully and accurately some of the profound difficulties that will ensue as a result of the striking of this language. We have here a national resource. The Everglades are half owned by the United States government for all the people of the country. They are--that half of the Everglades is administered by the Department of the Interior. By striking this language, the Department of the Interior will have no say whatsoever in how this $9 million appropriated in this bill is to be spent. The foundation which has been laid very, very carefully over a long period of time, and which has involved the appropriation and expenditure of several billion dollars so far, is undermined by the striking of this language. What we have had up to now is a cooperative working relationship between the State of Florida, the South Florida Water Management District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Department of the Interior. The United States Department of the Interior is involved here because of the fact that we have a number of ecosystems in those Everglades which are administered by the Department of the Interior, and appropriately so. Striking this language is going to do extreme damage to the foundation that has been laid, the confidence that has been had by these relating agencies in working together. That confidence will no longer exist. The people around the country who have watched this enterprise go forward, and they, too, have watched it with confidence because of the cooperation that has been had between the various agencies, many people around the country are going to now withdraw that confidence. They are going to be very skeptical about what is going to happen with regard to the Everglades. All of the environmental protection that is important in the Everglades restoration is now placed in jeopardy. The 68 threatened and endangered species that are in the Everglades now will be increasingly endangered because their manager, their overseer, the Department of the Interior, will no longer be active. I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, finally, that the Members here understand what is being done. This is technically accurate but it is wholly mischievous. It is going to result in substantial damage. We will have to immediately find ways to correct the damage which has been done by the striking of this language.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly on the point of order.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) to engage in a brief colloquy with me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) knows, there is language in the committee's report on this bill dealing with what is described as BLM wilderness reinventory activities. I just have some questions about the meaning and effect of that part of the report. To begin with, the report says that BLM has completed all of its wilderness reinventory activities begun in prior years, but I understand that part of the language is inaccurate because there is an ongoing process in Colorado that has not yet ended. I would respectfully ask the chairman, am I right in understanding that there is no intention to interfere with the ongoing reinventory process in Colorado?

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. Am I also right in understanding that nothing in the committee report is intended to interfere with BLM's normal process in revising its management plans or keeping its resource inventory current?

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for those answers.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment really is very simple. It is designed to ensure that this $9 million, which is appropriated in the interior appropriation bill, goes to the State of Florida, as it was intended by the chairman and the members of the committee; and that that $9 million would be used for land acquisition in a way that would enhance and protect the Everglades in the State of Florida.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman's comment, which I think is a very important one. The fact of the matter is passing the bill would preclude debate on wilderness for those regions; passing the bill would obviate the ability to protect those areas.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for this opportunity to discuss the protection of the San Rafael Swell region of southern Utah. I want to turn the subject of the discussion to wilderness. I believe that we have not done enough to protect wilderness in the country. It is, in fact, a diminishing resource especially in the San Rafael Swell region, which contains jagged cliff faces, narrow slot canyons, hidden valleys that swell 1,500 feet above the surrounding desert, there is much more that we need to do in terms of protecting these areas. As the sponsor of H.R. 1732, which is known as America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, I have a keen interest in today's debate on this bill, H.R. 3605, and the amendments that are being presented to it. There are over 1 million acres of wilderness quality public lands in 20 units in the San Rafael region that have been recognized by my legislation, and this includes places that are arbitrarily outside the boundaries of H.R. 3605, places including Factory Butte, Jones Bench, Limestone Cliffs, Red Desert, Rock Canyon, and Eagle Canyon that deserve to be protected as wilderness and are not protected in this bill. In fact, they would be discarded under this bill. There are 163 cosponsors of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act who support wilderness designation for these nationally significant areas that are public lands owned by all Americans. While 80 percent of the lands in H.R. 3065 are slated for wilderness protection by America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, there is no mention of protecting the wilderness qualities in these lands in the bill of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon). I see that and I hope others will see it, as they should, as a fatal flaw, a fatal shortcoming. Not only does it fail to protect these wild areas, but it will directly contribute to their further abuse and degradation. I have an amendment that I was going to offer which would designate the million plus acres of wilderness quality lands in the swell region as wilderness. These wild places deserve the protection that America's Red Rock Wilderness Act would confer upon them. But instead of offering this amendment, I am willing to make the bill wilderness neutral by not offering it. While the proponents of the present bill say that their intent is to make this bill wilderness neutral, they know and I know that that is simply not the case. This bill that we have before us, H.R. 3605, is anti-wilderness. It is anti-wilderness because it would continue the abuse of these lands, and its arbitrary boundaries divide or exclude several proposed wilderness areas. The chief local proponent of H.R. 3605 has said that this bill ``is a way of getting around wilderness,'' meaning pass this bill and then we never have to consider the wilderness question for the San Rafael Swell region again. If the House passes this bill, it could become a model of how to undercut both of this protection for our public lands. So I am asking the House to reject the bill, to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), pass the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). These are constructive amendments which will give us an opportunity to understand these regions better than we do. Let us keep them in study as the Udall amendment, for example, would propose. The Udall amendment, the Inslee amendment make constructive contributions to the national debate about how to protect America's wild lands. The bill that we have before us, H.R. 3605, would, in effect, end that debate. It would end that debate by precluding the opportunity to include vast regions of the San Rafael Swell area particularly from any further consideration or inclusion in the wilderness category. It would preclude further debate that would allow us the opportunity to protect those lands which so greatly deserve protection and, in fact, now need protection and will need it even more so if they are to succumb to the assault that would be inflicted upon them if 3605 were ever to become law. We have the opportunity here to make this a much better proposition. Let us pass the Inslee amendment; let us pass the Udall amendment and thereby make this a much more effective bill.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank our friends, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for their words about our dear friend, Matt McHugh. I also want to express my deep appreciation to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for the wonderful and very thoughtful things that she said about our friend and colleague, Matt McHugh, as well. Having followed him here to the House, I can say also without hesitation or fear of conviction that he set, while he was here, a very high standard indeed and he continues to set a high standard in his continuing public service at the World Bank. We in New York are very, very proud of this man and the service that he has rendered to our State and to the country. It is with a great deal of pride that I offer this measure to the other Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on behalf of this initiative, which will name the postal facility in Ithaca, New York, after my dear friend, colleague, and predecessor, the Honorable Matthew F. McHugh. It gives me particular pleasure to do so following the statements that have been just made by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), whose service with Mr. McHugh overlapped. I know that Matt holds the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) in great respect and affection, as do I, and I know very well that he would be very pleased if he were in this room now to have just heard the very lovely and kind and warm remarks that she made about him, as I was just a moment ago. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) very much for what she has just said. Also, I want to say that I too am honored to stand before you today to urge our support, the support of all the Members of the House, for H.R. 3030, which would rename the new post office building in Ithaca, New York, in honor of former Representative Matthew F. McHugh. Matt was my predecessor in the House, and I know many people here who served with him. He served with distinction for nine terms as a member of the Committee on Appropriations for 14 years. Matt championed issues like hunger in Africa that brought him no particular glory and no attention. He was a passionate advocate for those who could not adequately defend themselves and a voice for meeting our international responsibilities in a humane way. In his present position at the World Bank, and his many volunteer efforts, he remains a strong, dedicated leader in securing human rights for all. Matt's road to Congress began like many Members, with a career in law. He first moved to Ithaca, New York, in 1968 to join a law firm in that city. Just 1 year later, he was elected as Tompkins County's district attorney, making him the first Democrat to hold a county-wide elected office there in decades. In 1974, he was enlisted to run for the House seat which was then being vacated by former Representative Howard Robison, a very distinguished Republican who held that seat for a good many years and who was retiring at that moment. Matt McHugh won that seat and served the district admirably and well for 18 years. When he retired from the House, he was widely praised by Members of both parties as well as in the press for his thoughtfulness, his fairness, and his integrity. A national columnist, upon the news of his retirement, wrote that Matt McHugh was an example of ``the best the House can offer.'' Our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, and I quote, ``In my view, there is no Member of this House who more aptly sums up what public service ought to be all about than does Matt McHugh.'' Throughout his years in Congress, he made Ithaca his home. Ithacans continue to take pride in having sent a man of such distinction to the House of Representatives, and community leaders there have told me that they welcome such a permanent commemoration of Matt and his years of public service. Although he was never the kind of man to seek such honors, I know that he deserves recognition and this permanent commemoration of the service he gave will remind people of the fine example he set. Naming the new Ithaca post office in his honor is one small way in which we can acknowledge his years of hard work, dedication, and commitment to the people of New York's 26th Congressional District. I owe a special thanks also to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), our friend and colleague, in whose district the post office lies, as well as to the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) for his assistance in bringing this bill to the House. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) served with Matt here for a number of years. They were, during that service, good friends; and they continue to be good friends to this day. Matt still provides service for the country, as the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) has said, in his position as vice president and counsel to the president of the World Bank. He was, in fact, a distinguished Member of this House; indeed, as many people referred to him during his service here, a man of the House. And he continues to be a strong, dedicated, faithful citizen of the United States. We all owe him a great thanks for his service to the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say a few words in strong support of H.R. 3639, the legislation to name the State Department building for President Harry S. Truman. It is a most appropriate tribute to our 33rd President to engrave his name on the building that houses our diplomatic corps. Harry Truman, as we all know, rose from humble beginnings to become the leader of our Nation during a time of great crisis. When Franklin Roosevelt died 80 days into his fourth term, his Vice President had been ill-prepared to take over. Not part of Roosevelt's inner circle, Truman had to learn most of his foreign policy on the fly. The country was still at war in Europe and the Pacific, the atomic bomb was being developed in secret, and Joseph Stalin was backing away from the agreements reached at Yalta. Barely within Truman's first month in office, Germany surrendered. While confronting the need to rebuild Europe and control Stalinist governments in Yugoslavia and Poland, the new President also had to wage war in the Pacific. When Japan refused unconditional surrender, Truman had to decide whether to keep fighting by conventional means, which course he knew would cost hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives, or to use the atomic weapon. After weighing the cost of prolonging the war, he opted to drop a devastating bomb he did not even know existed 4 months earlier. The aftermath of the war was a time of great political upheaval at home. Faced with a country that was tired of the sacrifices of war, Truman watched as Republicans won majorities in both houses of Congress. Given no chance to win reelection in 1948, Harry Truman took his case to the people. In his famous whistle-stop campaign, he traveled almost 22,000 miles by train, stopping in small towns and cities all across the country. In an upset victory over New York Governor Thomas Dewey, Truman was elected President in his own right. During this term in office, Harry Truman had his great foreign policy successes, the Truman Doctrine to stop the spread of totalitarianism in Europe, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, and the Berlin Airlift to resupply West Berlin in the face of a Soviet blockade. These programs established the willingness of the United States to remain engaged in world affairs and not to retreat into isolationism as we had done after World War I. Harry Truman was a great man who was underappreciated in his time. History has shown the wisdom of his vision for America and for the world. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this effort to designate the State Department building as Harry S. Truman Federal Building and commend the sponsors of this legislation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my friends and colleagues for providing us with the opportunity to reflect for a moment on the life of this great and wonderful man, and to join with millions of other New Yorkers, others across this country and indeed in many places around the world who are feeling a deep sense of loss and a deep sense of sorrow at the death of John Cardinal O'Connor. He was, in many ways, a very unique man. At the same time he prided himself on his own simplicity and his own sense of simple relationships with others. He was the classic parish priest, the classic pastor, peacemaker, working with others in the community wherever he found himself, whatever that community might be, helping people meet their obligations and helping them to get over the more difficult parts of their life. He was a volunteer in the service of his country. He was a chaplain in the United States Navy. He spent a good part of his life ministering to servicemen, and the ministering that priests and other religious people do to servicemen is often some of the most difficult ministering because these are people away from home, away from their families and often under difficult and troubling circumstances. He rose in that order to become chief of chaplains in the United States Navy. He was also, of course, a great leader in New York, in Pennsylvania, and other places where his ministry took him. Among other things that I recall about him was his great advocacy on behalf of working people. He was a great believer in the right of working people to organize, to bargain collectively, to work in unions; and he was a great fighter against those who would impede that right. He went out of his way many times to make it clear that he was a strong believer in the right of people to organize collectively to try to improve their lives and the lot of their families. This, among other things, stands out among this great and wonderful religious leader, great and wonderful American. We are all saddened by his passing. We are all saddened by our loss as a result of that passing, but we do have this opportunity, thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), to reflect in this way on his life to pay tribute to the contributions that he made and to the great example that he has set for all of the rest of us.

Mr. HINCHEY

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we did see them in New York State, and there were advertisements that were put forth principally on Long Island; and they, of course, were deceitful. They were deceitful in a variety of ways. First of all, they pretended that the proponent of those ads, the beneficiary of those ads, was one who had a sound record in environmental protection when we know that the environmental record of Governor George W. Bush in Texas is an abysmal record. In the air quality arena alone, for example, the city of Houston now has surpassed Los Angeles with the worst air quality in the country, as a result of the fact that Governor Bush has vetoed every attempt to pass sound environmental control legislation in the State and turned his back on environmental quality in the State generally. Furthermore, the ads that the gentleman is talking about now, which were allowed as part of the Tax Code, those ads that the gentleman very appropriately brought to our attention today and which are allowed in a section of the Tax Code are totally deceitful and point out the reason why we need campaign finance reform and point out the illegitimacy of this proposal.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I believe I did.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the kindest characterization of this proposal would be to say that it is disingenuous. It is obviously disingenuous, because the party that is offering it here, the majority party in this House, several years ago adopted an internal resolution that required a two-thirds majority to raise revenues by any vote taken by the House of Representatives. What have we seen in the carrying out of the adoption of that change in the rules here? What we have seen is that virtually every time the issue has come up, the leadership of the House has waived the requirement. So one can only conclude that this proposal for a super majority, anti-democratic super majority to raise revenues, is one that is not really believed in by those people who are offering it, because every time they have had an opportunity to put it into place they have abandoned it. They have walked away from it. It seems quite clear that they do not even believe in it themselves. Why would we want to do this? Why would we put fiscal policy in a Constitution when every sound economic principle everywhere says that that would be a foolish thing to do? Why would we want to do it? How would we react to emergencies? How would we respond to a crisis in agriculture? How would we respond to national emergencies of various kinds? How would we respond to natural calamities when we needed to respond aggressively and forthrightly and attentively to those problems when people were in serious trouble? Look what is happening in the farm belt all across America. Look what is happening to agriculture as a result of the 1996 farm bill and the destructive impact that that has had upon ranchers and farmers all across the country. We are not even responding to that adequately now under the leadership of the Republican party in this House. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if we required a two-thirds majority. They have turned their backs on ranchers and farmers. Now they want to get even further away from them and other people who would face difficult circumstances in our country by implanting this super majority, this anti-democratic super majority provision in the Constitution as an amendment to the United States Constitution. It is an absurd proposal. Why are they advancing the proposal? Ostensibly they are advancing the proposal because they would like everyone to think that taxes are too high, that Federal taxes are too high. Of course, everyone who is struggling with their income tax form these days is prepared to believe that, or many people are prepared to believe it, I assume. But the fact of the matter is that the situation is quite different from that. Let us just take a look at certain people in our economy and how the income tax code relates to them. The median income in America today is about $46,700. That is the median income; half below, half above. The average Federal income tax rate for a family of four at the median income in 1999, last year, is 7.5 percent. In 1981, it was 11.8 percent. The fact of the matter is that the tax rate for people at the median income is lower now than it was in 1981, and in fact, is the lowest it has been since 1966. If one is making half of the median income, he is in effect at a negative income tax as a result of the changes in the earned income tax credit that were put into place by the Clinton administration as a result of the 1993 budget proposal. As a matter of fact, that budget proposal also made some adjustments downward for people at the lower- income ranges, as well. So the situation for people at the median income is better today than it was in 1981. People making half of the median income are not paying any income taxes whatsoever. What about people making a little bit more money? Suppose someone is making twice the median income. Suppose they are making somewhere in excess of $90,000 a year for a family of four. The fact of the matter is that the median income for them is now 14.1 percent. What was it in 1981? It was 19.1 percent. The median income for a family of four and the tax rate for the median income, people making twice the median income is lower than it was in 1981. Even after tax income, the after-tax rate for people at the top 1 percent is even lower than it was in 1987. The fact of the matter is that taxes are taking less of a bite of the income, Federal taxes, Federal income taxes, taking less of a bite out of the income of Americans than they were back in 1981. This proposal is not just disingenuous. It is not just a proposal in which the proponents of it do not really believe themselves. They have abandoned it every time it is come up. They know very well it is not going to pass. It is not going to get two-thirds of the majority of this House voting for it. It is simply put up here for partisan political reasons in the hope that they can deceive a few people here and there around the country, that the Republican Party really wants to see taxes cut, that they really believe in lower taxes. When it was pointed out here just a few moments ago with the tax shelter hustlers, the front page of Forbes magazine what they really want to do, what they really want to do is protect the privileges of the very, very wealthy.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from the bill, H.R. 2418.