Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the remarks that the gentleman was making about education and the need for improving the quality of our education here in United States, and actually that is an ongoing process. Improving the quality of education is something that has been happening here since the very beginning, and it is an evolutionary process and will continue to be so. We will never be at a condition when we have done everything perfectly with regard to education, but the fact of the matter is that in this particular Congress, over the course of most of the last 2 years we have seen a compilation, frankly, of what can only be called a shameful record on the issue of education. Just for example, last year the congressional leadership here in this House produced a budget resolution that called for the largest cuts in Federal funding for education and job training that we have ever seen in the Nation's history. Also, that same budget resolution attempted to sharply limit access to student loans, making it much more difficult and in some cases, many cases, frankly would have made it impossible for young people to get a college education. The Federal Government shut down in part last winter because the majority party here insisted on cutting elementary and secondary education programs by $3.3 billion, and they did that in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthy. The Government shut down because the President said no to that. The President said that it would be a shocking retreat from our education responsibilities to cut back on the Federal funding of education by $3.3 billion. Not only would that make education more difficult and less meaningful and less accessible to millions of American children, but it would also force up local real property taxes around the country. In New York and in New Jersey education is financed in large part, frankly too much, by the real property tax, and whenever the Federal Government cuts back on its funding, its contributions to elementary and secondary education, the result is that education suffers but also real property taxpayers, senior citizens on fixed incomes, end up paying more that they cannot afford. So it is really a transfer of taxing obligation from the Federal Government to the local government, from the broad-based Federal taxes which are much fairer. I mean, no one likes taxes. Taxes are never popular. But at least the taxes levied by the Federal Government are in almost every instance broad-based, progressive and much fairer than local real property taxes. And so when you have this transfer of obligation for funding from the Federal Government to the local government, you also have a shift in taxing obligation, and you shift the cost of education from the broad-based, more progressive Federal taxes to the more narrowly based, more regressive local real property taxes. That is another aspect of this budget resolution that the President vetoed and the majority here insisted upon for week after week. Ultimately they lost because the President would not give in to them, but they attempted to blackmail the minority here in this House, they attempted to blackmail the President into signing those terrible budget bills which would have done the things that we are talking about here. So that is part of the record here. And then, furthermore, still ignoring that quality education is a top priority for America's parents, Congress passed a budget resolution in 1996 that will result in a real cut in educational services all across the country by 20 percent over the next 6 years. Now that is the attitude that this majority has in this House on education. That is the record, and I think it is a shameful one. The House leadership has turned the 3 R's of education, which are reading, writing, and arithmetic, into retraction, reduction, and retreat. That is what they would do with the educational system here in our country. Fortunately, we were able to prevent them from doing it by the President's veto and our ability to sustain that veto. So by putting a freeze on Federal education spending, we would be denying our children opportunities to succeed in the workplace. Now supporters of the fiscal 1997 budget resolution and the House- passed appropriations bill are ignoring the realities of education today, and what are those realities? First of all, enrollment in elementary and secondary schools will grow by 7 million students between 1993 and the year 2005. So the burden on elementary and secondary schools is not going to decline, it is going to increase. We are going to have more students in school, and we need to educate them. That is a basic responsibility of any society, to educate the next generation. This government, this majority in this House, wants to wash its hands of that responsibility completely and pass it on to somebody else. What else? United States schools need right now $112 billion to repair or upgrade dangerous facilities. That is not to make the schools shining and perfect and lovely, as we all might want them to be. That $112 billion is the cost of repairing facilities so that they would no longer be dangerous. Our young people face a job market that is more competitive, more technologically advanced than ever before. We should be preparing our children to meet these challenges, instead of removing critical funding from our school system and slashing student loans. The Senate has one last chance to keep the doors of educational opportunity open for our children and maintain our investment in the future. Follow the lead of Senate Democrats and restore $3.1 billion in education and job training funding to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. That is what you support, that is what I support, that is what most of us in our party in this House support, and that is what I think we need to do. I call on all of the people in this House to break with the extreme agenda of the leadership here and listen to what American families are saying. Education is a top priority in households across the country, and it should be a top priority here in Washington. We are doing precisely the wrong thing by reducing funding for education, if that is what they succeed in doing. They would be doing exactly the opposite of what we ought to be doing. We ought to be promoting the best quality educational system that we can afford. We should be ensuring that every child has access to good quality education from Head Start through college and on to graduate education, if they have the ability and the interest to do so. Advanced degrees are going to be critically more important in the future. My 9-year-old daughter will be engaging in various kinds of activities in whatever professional pursuit she follows, things that we can hardly imagine today, because of the technological advancements that we are experiencing. We are moving into an era that is less and less dependent on natural resource industries and more and more dependent upon intellectual resource industries. We need the next generation to be highly educated and well trained and sophisticated in their approach to the job market and the marketplace, and we have a responsibility now, those of us who are serving in these positions now have a responsibility, to ensure that they have those opportunities, and if we fail to meet that responsibility, then our country will be a much different place as we enter the 21st century.

Mr. HINCHEY. No question about it. I mean the interesting thing about--actually there are many interesting things about Mr. Dole's proposals--one of the interesting things about his proposal for an almost $550 billion tax cut comes about when people ask him how is he going to do that: How will you cut taxes by $550 billion? What are the programs specifically that you will cut? Well, he does not come up with specifics. He does not tell us what he is going to do. What he says is: ``Trust me, where there is a will, there is a way.'' And I have heard Jack Kemp say that exactly that way: Where there is a will, there is a way. And Bob Dole has the will; I do not doubt that. I do not doubt that for one moment. I am convinced that Bob Dole has the will to cut Medicare so that it no longer is able to serve our elderly citizens' health care needs, to gut Medicaid so that people who need health care, around-the-clock supervision in nursing homes, people who are elderly, frail elderly, people with total disabilities will be thrown out on the street. I do not doubt that he has the will to do that. I do not doubt, either, that he has the will to cut education, because they have tried to do it. They have tried to cut education. We have seen them do it in this Congress here this year and last year. We have seen them try in every way they could. We stood in their way and prevented them from doing it, but they tried everything they could to cut education. One of the things about that that astounded me the most was when they tried to cut the Eisenhower Teacher Training Program. That has been around for a long time. I was a sailor, a white hat sailor on a tin can destroyer in the western Pacific sailing in the Straits of Taiwan when the Soviet Union launched something called sputnik. It was the first satellite ever launched. Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States, and it was a wake-up call to the President and to this Congress back then in the late 1950's. What they did was they decided that they needed to concentrate more on education, and particularly on education in mathematics and science, in physics. So the Eisenhower education program was started to do a very good and very important thing. That was to ensure the best quality teachers in our high schools to teach young people in mathematics and algebra, in calculus, in trigonometry, in physics and basic physics and applied physics. and in other scientific pursuits, so that we could not only compete with the Soviet Union, the then Soviet Union, but surpass them. As a matter of fact, that program was successful, because we did precisely that. We went on not only to catch up to the Soviets in the space program, but to go far beyond them, surpass them by leaps and bounds. Now the situation is that we are cooperating with them in space today. But that cooperation would never have come about if the initiative had been left to them. That cooperation has come about only because we surpassed them, because we were better than they were. We then invited them to participate with us, as this very generous Nation had done many times in the past with other people. But now this Congress wants to eliminate even the Eisenhower education program. That has been a target on their cuts. One of their Presidents, one of their heroes, one of the people that the American people elected who served us well for 8 years in the Presidency in the decade of the 1950's and established this very foresightful, meaningful, important and successful educational program, they want to cut that as well. That is ow far they will go. It is astonishing, I think.

Mr. HINCHEY. There is an irony here also that should not be lost. There are a great many people in this Congress, including a great many who are advocating the abolition of student loans, or to make student loans more difficult, or the abolition of Pell grants, or to make Pell grants more difficult, or cutting of education in various ways, who themselves would not have had the opportunity for education if it had not been for the GI bill, say, for example, or Perkins, or a Pell grant, or something of that nature. There is something terribly ironic and difficult to understand about that, how people who are here by virtue of the fact that they had help from the public purse in some way, at some point in their life, to expand themselves, to expand their careers and expand their opportunities, now want to deny that to another generation. I think that is terribly perverse at best. The example of student loans is just another one that I think just cries out for understanding. Where is the logic here, unless it is that you just want to provide a few extra dollars to some banker to make it more costly for a student to get an education, to make it more costly for the taxpayer to help provide educational opportunity for the next generation of Americans. And in denying that taxpayer the opportunity for a little lower taxes and denying the student the opportunity for education, you simply are just transferring that benefit to some banker who does not need it, by introducing some third party into the student loan process. I think that making the student loans direct was one of the simplest yet one of the most effective things that the President has done with regard to the availability of higher education. I applaud him for it. I think anybody who recognizes the value of that program does the same.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Presidential candidate Bob Dole came back to Washington in an attempt to rally the troops around his tax cut proposal. It has become increasingly obvious, sadly, that the leadership of this House and the Presidential Republican candidate are capable of generating only one basic idea, and that basic idea is to cut taxes for the wealthy at the expense of every other American. There is no way we can reduce taxes by $550 billion, which is what Mr. Dole proposes to do, without slashing away at Medicare even more severely than was attempted by this House in the budget that was passed here and vetoed by the President. We saw an attempt to cut Medicare here by $270 billion. The Dole plan will cut it, in all probability, by more than twice that amount. Let us not slash Medicare. Let us be sensible about it and let us see this plan for exactly what it is: An attempt to deprive elderly Americans of the health care they so desperately need and the security that their families need as well.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, just before the August recess the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed urging Presidential candidate Bob Dole to embrace a return to supply side economics. Shortly thereafter the Journal printed a letter I authored in response to that op-ed, showing that the economy performed better since 1992 than it had during the previous 12 years of supply side economics. In comparing economic performance under Clinton since 1992, to the Reagan-Bush years, we find that under President Clinton the economy has grown more rapidly, employment has risen at a faster rate, per capita income has increased more quickly, and the deficit is much smaller relative to the economy. Last month's unemployment rate of 5.1 percent provides evidence of just how healthy the economy has become despite the fact that the growth has not been shared equally among all regions of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, we owe much of this progress to the success of the 1993 budget reduction law which was enacted by the Democratic Congress. It was reduced the deficit by more than 60 percent. It has expanded the EITC program, providing tax breaks averaging $500 for New Yorkers alone. Let us not return to supply side economics. Let us keep on a steady course which is providing economic growth for all Americans.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, just before the August recess, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed written by economist Alan Reynolds of the Hudson Institute. That op-ed, entitled ``Clintonomics doesn't measure up,'' urged presidential candidate Bob Dole to embrace a return to supply-side economics based on what was portrayed as anemic economic growth during the past 4 years. Reynolds argued that key statistics showed economic performance was superior during the supply-side years of President Reagan than it has been since President Clinton was elected to office. As I read the article, it became clear to me that Mr. Reynolds, a long-time advocate for supply-side policies, was not providing objective analysis of this situation. Calling on the resources of the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am a member, I conducted extensive research into Reynolds' economic analysis and the statistics he used to make his case. I was not surprised to find that the analysis was orchestrated in a manner that proved to be generous to the supply-side years and not so generous to the Clinton years. First, Reynolds conveniently began his analysis in 1983, the third year of Reagan's presidency, rather than in 1981, the year in which the Reagan tax cut was actually enacted. The huge budget deficits resulting from those tax reductions forced up interest rates in 1981 and plunged the economy into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment reached almost 11 percent nationally, and the strong recovery in the years that followed must be seen from that perspective: from that economic nadir, we had nowhere else to go but up. In addition, Reynolds also excluded the Bush years from his analysis despite the fact that supply-side policies were continued throughout that era. The Journal recently printed a letter I authored in response to that op-ed that included a more complete comparison of economic performance since 1992 and that during the full Reagan-Bush 12 years. The analysis showed the economy has in fact performed better since 1993 than it had during the previous 12 years of supply-side economics. Under Clinton, the economy has grown more rapidly, employment has risen at a faster rate, per capita income has increased more quickly, and the deficit is smaller relative to the economy. Gross domestic product growth has been 2.5 percent under annually since 1992, as opposed to 2.4 percent Reagan-Bush. Employment grew at a rate of 2.6 percent each year since 1992, a full percentage point higher than in the years from 1981-1992. And finally, the deficit has averaged 2.9 percent of the size of the economy under Clinton, while it averaged 4.3 percent under Reagan and Bush. Last month's unemployment rate of 5.1 percent provides further evidence of just how healthy the national economy has become in recent times. Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that all areas of the Nation have experienced equal economic progress during the last 4 years. There are areas such as the Hudson Valley and the Southern Tier in my State that continue to experience significant economic anxiety and widespread underemployment. While there is much left to do to help get people to work, even these areas have experienced improvements in their local economies since 1992. Mr. Speaker, we owe much of our economic progress to the success of the 1993 budget reduction law that was enacted by the Democratic Congress. It has reduced the deficit by 60 percent, from $290 billion in 1992 to an estimated $117 billion this year. The law has resulted in four straight years of deficit reduction for the first time in about 100 years. And the deficit this year is expected to be at its smallest size relative to the economy since 1974. In addition to the historic deficit reduction which has occurred, the law also significantly expanded the EITC program providing tax cuts to families earning less than $28,000 annually. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, in my congressional district, an estimated 31,974 working families have received tax breaks averaging $480 this year due to the expansion of the EITC. By any measure then, whether it is economic performance, deficit reduction, or tax relief to working families, the 1993 budget law has been a great success. Despite all of these positive statistics on economic performance that were included in my Wall Street Journal piece, I am disappointed to say that I was not successful in convincing GOP candidate Bob Dole that a return to supply-side economics would be unwise. Last month, Dole released his $550 billion tax plan with breaks targeted to only the wealthiest families in our Nation, and paid for by a magical economic growth dividend. This morning, Senator Dole held meetings in the House of Representatives to peddle his supply-side economic plan to reluctant Republican Members of this body. The American people must know that history speaks for itself on supply-side economics: the Dole plan will bankrupt our Nation, undermine economic growth, and increase worker unemployment. It is time that we pay tribute to the 1993 budget law which has been a tremendous success in reviving the economy and creating good, decent- paying jobs for millions of Americans.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for his tireless and dedicated leadership on behalf of working Americans and to strongly support this legislation, H.R. 3448. At long last this body today has the opportunity to provide some relief to working families in my district in New York and across the country. A 90-cent increase in the minimum wage will raise the earnings of a full-time minimum worker by $1,872 a year. If we had raised the minimum wage last year as we advocated, in New York alone minimum wage workers would have earned an additional $181 million last year. Nevertheless, this now will help thousands of families work themselves out of poverty and raise their standard of living. While I would have preferred to see the minimum wage increased higher than $5.15 an hour and put into effect sooner than October 1, I support this bill in its current form recognizing that it is the best we are going to get. In addition to raising wages, the tax relief contained in the bill will help small businesses hire more workers, invest in new equipment and create more jobs. Finally the expansion of the availability of IRA deductions to homemakers is a good idea and one that I advocated since the beginning of this Congress. I am glad to see it finally enacted. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is an example of how this Congress can overcome the objections of the leadership of this House and finally work in a dedicated and productive way on behalf of American families.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for arranging this tribute to our friend, Hamilton Fish, Jr. Mr. Speaker, it was with deep sorrow that we received the news that the Nation and New York have lost one of its great men, Hamilton Fish, Jr. Ham stood for what was best in this institution and what is best about our system of government. He was the kind of person that Jefferson and Madison had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, the kind of person they wanted and expected to serve in the legislature they were creating. They wanted the seats in this Chamber to be occupied by people who took their responsibilities more seriously than they took themselves, people of judgment, people of substance. Ham was above all a thoughtful, judicious person, a man of integrity. This institution already misses his wisdom. Ham was known and respected for his independence. He was still a relatively junior Member of Congress when he gained national recognition for his committee vote to recommend impeachment of President Nixon. He will always be remembered for that vote, for his decision to apply his high standards of integrity impartially, even when he must have been under great pressure to do otherwise. But it would be a mistake to take that one vote as the measure of his independence or of his career. Ham was proud to be called a loyal Republican, but he knew that loyalty does not mean surrender of one's own judgment and temperament. Much of what Ham accomplished was done quietly, behind the scenes, in his conversations and discussions with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He believed that he served his party best when he served the country best, and that he served the country best by bringing the best of his own mind and heart to every issue he addressed. There have been Hamilton Fishes in Congress since our republic was young. His family was one of the most celebrated and distinguished families in the Hudson Valley of New York, which is also my home, and they have made their mark. One of his forebears served as President Grant's Secretary of State. His father was famous for his staunch opposition to the New Deal. Another forebear was known as an arbiter of New York society, an aristocrat among aristocrats. I know some people thought of Ham that way. His bearing, his manners, even his height marked him as a distinguished person, someone who literally stood head and shoulders above the rest. Ham had all the good characteristics we associate with aristocrats like Lincoln and Jefferson. But like them, he believed in all the people, and did not set himself above anyone. He brought people up to his level by treating them as if they had always been there. For many years, he served as the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Immigration. To some people, this seemed incongruous, perhaps even threatening. Here was a man whose ancestors had settled in long before the Revolution making policy on immigration. But perhaps it was this perspective that let him understand just how much America is an immigrant Nation, and how much immigrants continue to contribute. Despite the traditional hostility between the Irish and the English, Ham was probably honored and loved by more Irish groups back in the Hudson Valley than any of us who can trace our ancestry back to Ireland. Some of my friends up there still wonder if he had some hidden connection or relation to Ireland, to Italy, or to Poland, since he was so fair and generous to their people. I don't think he did--but any of them would have been honored if they could count him as one of their sons. Ham and I both represented parts of the Hudson Valley for many years, most of my time in the State Assembly, most of his time in Congress. Our mutual love of the valley brought us together many times. Ham could always be counted on to support any effort to protect the valley's beauty, grace, and charm, and to advance the welfare of its citizens. It was Ham Fish who wrote the legislation preserving Eleanor Roosevelt's home at Hyde Park as a national historic site, although his father could not bear to hear her name. I hope that his actions, his spirit, and above all his character will long be remembered in our valley, and I hope they will be remembered too here in Congress. If his spirit serves as an example to us, perhaps it can raise all of us to his towering height. I extend my condolences to his widow, Mary Ann, and his children.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, as White House National Security Adviser Anthony Lake recently met with the Chinese leaders in Beijing. I believe it is imporant for Members of Congress to know what the Republic of China's leaders have been thinking about the reunification and other foreign policy issues. The best answers were provided by Mr. John H. Chang, the newly appointed foreign minister of the Republic of China, in a news conference on June 25, 1996, in Taipei. Minister Chang made essentially the following points: First, the Republic of China will not and should not engage in any reunification talks with Beijin unless the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China enjoy equal international status. Second, Minister Chang asks the People's Republic of China not to sabotage the Republic of China's diplomatic efforts abroad, otherwise the People's Republic of China will simple hasten the appearance of the ``Republic of Taiwan.'' Third, Minister Chang hopes that the leaders in Beijing will keep their promise of ``Chinese not fighting Chinese'' by not derailing the Republic of China's efforts in joining international organizations. Fourth, Minister Chang stresses that the Republic of China's foreign policy and its mainland policy are of equal importance and priority. Both policies are complementary to each other. Fifth, the Republic of China, being a sovereign country, has no reason not to pursue its goal of rejoining the United Nations. The campaign to return to the United Nations is only one of the objectives of the Republic of China's government, not the top priority item. Returning to the United Nations is a long-term goal of the government, and at present the Republic of China only requests the United Nations to set up an ad hoc committee to study the representation case. Sixth, the Republic of China's diplomatic initiatives are not intended to aggravate or challenge the People's Republic of China. They are intended to create a beneficial environment for the Republic of China to survive internationally, to allow its citizens to live peaceably and to prosper at home and to afford its citizens pride and confidence as they travel abroad. Mr. Speaker, I believe Minister Chang's June 25 press interview is helpful to our understanding of the latest developments in the Taiwan Strait.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to raise a very serious consideration about one aspect of this particular bill; that is, the fact that this bill cuts 36 percent from fiscal year 1995 appropriations, the amount that it will spend in the next fiscal year on renewable energy research and development. This is a critical failure of the legislation. Keep in mind, a few years ago, we fought a war in the gulf. We fought that war for one purpose, because the gulf provides the world with the oil that it needs to run. Just a few weeks ago, we lost 19 American servicemen in Saudi Arabia. The reason those servicemen were stationed in Saudi Arabia is only one, and that is because so much of our energy in this country is imported. We are now importing more than 50 percent of our annual energy needs, the annual oil needs, from outside of the country. We are becoming critically dependent upon foreign oil once again. This is a very serious matter indeed. There is only one way for us to unhook ourselves from our dependence on gulf oil, one way to ensure that we do not fight more wars and lose more lives in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the gulf region. That is to remove ourselves from this dependence on gulf oil, Saudi Arabian oil particularly. We need to do that through research and development. The research and development industry, the industry for research and development in solar is about to explode. It is expected that this industry will grow by 70 percent over the next 5 years. Let us look at where we stand with regard to other countries in this area of research and development. Denmark spends more for wind research and development than does the United States. Japan spends twice as much on photovoltaic research and development than the United States, and Japan spends $150 million more on photovoltaic procurement. We need to reinvest in alternative energy. If we fail to do that, we are going to lose more American lives in the future.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would eliminate funding for the Economic Development Administration. The EDA is a lean, efficient Government agency that promotes economic development in distressed communities throughout the Nation. The agency helps communities improve their infrastructure, adjust to the impact of defense downsizing, and recover from natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. EDA is also an agency that has effectively reinvented itself during the last several years by streamlining its regulations, reducing staff levels and overhead expenses, and strengthening the public-private partnership to create jobs and promote local economic development. In my district, the agency is a proven success in creating jobs and revitalizing an economy, which has been devastated by the impact of defense downsizing. EDA has funded the Small Business Resource Center in Kingston, NY, for example, a program that assists small business start-ups and provides technical and market information to local businesses seeking to expand. Since its opening just over a year ago, the resource center has helped many small businesses in the area improve their operations and their profitability. The center has also facilitated the start up of 15 new businesses in just 12 months. EDA's support for the resource center has helped Ulster County recover from the impact of defense downsizing, and in that regard the agency is somewhat unique at the Federal level. It is the only agency that maintains a major program solely dedicated to assisting communities that have suffered due to defense cutbacks. The Defense Adjustment Assistance Program assists economically- distressed communities build a solid base on which sustainable economic development can be established and maintained. This helps explain how EDA has saved almost 10 thousand jobs in the State of New York in less than 4 years. Is this really the best economic development strategy that the sponsors of this amendment can come up with? I urge my colleagues to join me and Chairman Rogers in opposing this unwise amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment today to share some memories of one of my distinguished predecessors, Joseph Y. Resnick, who served in this body during the mid-1960's. Joe Resnick was an inspiration to me as a young man when I was first getting involved in politics and Government service. His commitment to public service and his responsiveness to his constituents led to a new era in representative government in the Hudson Valley region, a legacy which continues to this day. The first Ulster County Democratic convention that I attended in 1964 featured Joe Resnick as a candidate for Congress against a long-time, seldom-seen Republican incumbent. During his acceptance speech at that convention Joe Resnick told a story about a conversation with a friend of his in Ellenville, NY. The man expressed his surprise that Joe was a Democrat. You see, back in those days Democrats in upstate New York were outnumbered 3 to 1. Joe continued on in his speech, not for a moment defensive or embarrassed by it and said ``I'm the best kind of Democrat--the winning kind!'' And he was right. And it wasn't the first or the last time he was right either. Joe Resnick brought a new style of leadership to the region. He was a very visible public official. Up until that time, Members of Congress in the region didn't have district offices, but Joe Resnick opening a district office in Kingston, NY. Joe Resnick actually wanted his constituents to know who he was and that he was there to serve them, not the other way around. It used to be that the only way you could get your Congressman to help you was if you had power, money, or good connections. Joe Resnick had a radically new idea--serving the public directly, with dedication, and without discrimination. It all seems so natural to us today to do that, but believe me 30 years ago it wasn't. His example inspired me to open one of the very first district offices when I was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1976. When I first came to Congress in January of 1993, then Speaker Tom Foley told me a wonderful story about his service with Joe Resnick on the House Agriculture Committee back in the 1960's. Joe Resnick was a freshman and the scene was the first day that the committee met for that session of Congress. The chairman of the committee, Speaker Foley went on to say, was an old Southern gentleman, very much of the old school as well, speaking in a thick Southern accent, who propounded the popular theory of those days that a freshman Member of Congress should be ``seen and not heard,'' and that's the kind of treatment that the freshman Members could expect from the committee, and so forth. That was how it was in the old days. Well, Joe Resnick, who as a freshman was seated at the far end of the dais from the chairman, heard this and said ``nobody is going to tell me how to vote; nobody is going to tell me what to do'' in a voice loud enough for everyone in the room to hear. And nobody did ever tell him how to vote and get away with it. Joe Resnick was a man of conscience. His campaign literature reflected this--``I am my own man. I represent no special interest. I speak and vote only in accordance with my conscience and judgment to benefit the people I represent. The political bosses don't control me.'' And they didn't. Speaker Foley went on to tell me that Joe Resnick never did hit it off with that committee chairman and never got help from him. But Joe Resnick had his own circle of friends in powerful places, most notably his friendship with President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Joe was an energetic public servant as well, working hard to bring Federal programs to the people who needed them--from food relief to helping to keep Castle Point veterans hospital from closing. He even brought President Lyndon Baines Johnson to Ellenville, for the dedication of Ellenville Hospital, on a day which is still remembered today. Although Joe Resnick was a prosperous man at the time of his untimely death in 1968, he and his brothers, with whom he founded the famed Channel Master Corporation, have never for a moment forgotten their humble origins as children of immigrant parents from Russia. His story, and the story of his large, extended family, is the story of America itself--hardworking, dedicated, and big hearted in all the right places and at all the right times. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow would have been Joe Resnick's birthday and I want to respectfully invite my colleagues to join me in offering our prayers and best wishes to Joe Resnick's family on that day.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, due to a delay this morning I did not make it to the floor to vote on several rollcall votes. On rollcall No. 274, the Sanders amendment to increase funding for the Court of Veterans Appeals, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 273, the Shays- Lowey amendment on increasing funds for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS amendment I would have voted ``yes.'' The funding for this program has remained flat for the last 3 years while the number of AIDS cases has increased by an additional one-third in that time and the number of States and cities qualifying for grants has increased by 23 percent. We must do better--this Congress should not be abandoning people with AIDS and having them live on the street. amendment offered by mr. hefley

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that some bureaucrat in the Energy Department, who is in charge of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would object to having a little money taken out of their program. That does not come as a surprise to me. The question is whether or not we ought to be spending that money a little more wisely. I think that the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will provide us with the opportunity to do precisely that, spend that money a little bit more wisely. This money would take money out of that Naval Petroleum Reserve and put it into weatherization. For every dollar we spend on this weatherization program, we realize about $1.62 in savings. This saves energy by weatherizing homes. Of course, on the humanitarian level, which I think is even more critically important, it saves lives. It allows people who are living in cold climates and in uncomfortable conditions to live more comfortably by weatherizing their homes, and also increases their personal security thereby. So in spite of the fact that someone who is in charge of this particular money now might object to having it go someplace else, I think it is in the best interests of the people of the country to take a little money out of NPR, put it into weatherization and thereby provide a lot more comfort and save some energy for this country.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in favor of this amendment, and I want to take the opportunity to say a few words on its behalf. I think that it makes very good sense for us to take this relatively small amount of money, $359 million, out of the fund for fossil fuel research and put it where it is most needed at this particular moment, and that is in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, first of all, is funded presently at the lowest level it has ever been funded at since its beginning, so it is not a case that there is too much money in the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fact of the matter is there is far too little. Furthermore, it makes good sense now at this particular moment to take this $359 million out of fossil fuel research and put it into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why? This $359 million in research for fossil fuels ought to be being paid for the fossil fuel companies themselves. The oil companies today are making once again record profits. Let me give my colleagues an example. Since January of this year the price that we are paying for regular gasoline at the pump in New York has gone up by more than 30 cents a gallon. Now that the spot market price for gasoline has come down, and it has come down now more than 16 cents a gallon since the end of April, the oil companies have dropped their prices by only 2 to 3 cents a gallon. So they are pocketing 13 to 14 cents a gallon on every gallon of gasoline that is sold in New York, and it is even higher than that in California and other places across the country. They are the ones who ought to be paying for this fossil fuel research. Furthermore, this Congress has failed since its beginning to continue a tax on the oil companies which was designed to pay for the cost of the cleanup of old toxic and hazardous waste dump sites and also is to pay for the cost of leaking underground petroleum storage tanks. That failure of this Congress to extend that tax which had been in existence for those purposes means that every year the oil companies are pocketing an additional $1 billion. Now we are never going to recoup that money. We are never, even if we pass these taxes, put them back in existence so we have the funds to pay for the cost of cleaning up toxic and hazardous waste dump sites and the cost of underground petroleum spills, we are never going to make it retroactive. So they have gotten away now with more than a billion dollars a year by not having to pay that tax, and they are getting away with additional billions in dollars in excess profits because of the fact they are changing more at the pump by orders of magnitude than they have to pay on the spot market for the petroleum products that they buy. The oil companies are getting away with murder. They have their hands in the pockets of the motoring American public, and they are pulling out fistfuls of dollars day in and day out and stuffing it into their own pockets. CEO's making salaries of a million and a half dollars while the guy who is struggling to go to work every day has to pay an additional 30 cents a gallon, 25 cents a gallon, for every gallon of gasoline he buys at the pump. It is wrong, it is unfair, it is unreasonable, and this Congress ought to put a stop to it. So this is the time to take that money, that $359 million, put it in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, where it is desperately needed; the fund has never been this low; and make the oil companies pay for this fossil fuel research. Why should the American public be subsidizing that fossil fuel research when the benefits are going to go to the oil companies in the end in any case? This is just another example of the kind of corporate welfare that has been perpetuated here over and over again. Let us make the oil companies pay for their own research, let us put a little money into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and let us go to a system that is a little bit fairer for the American public, particularly those in rural districts like mine and other rural districts across the country where the people are totally dependent upon the automobile for transportation. Every time they go from home to work, from home to school, from home to the supermarket, they are putting additional money into the hands of the oil companies, and it is coming out of their pockets. So this amendment makes good sense. Let us pass this amendment and tell the oil companies it is time for them to pay for their own research, put a little more money in the Land Water Conservation Fund, and stop exploiting the American people.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, old habits break hard. That is as true of nations as it is of people. We are in the habit of spending enormous amounts of money on the military budget. Right now we are spending approximately the same amount as the next 10 nations combined. It is simply a prudent thing to freeze our defense spending at its present level. Some might argue that we ought to go far beyond that and reduce the military budget substantially. There are people in this town, responsible people who follow the military expenditures intimately, who would argue that you could safely cut $50 billion out of the military budget without affecting the security of this country one iota. No one there is proposing anything like that. They are simply proposing that we freeze military spending at its present level so that we can begin to establish some new priorities. Our priorities approximately have been to spend for the military, for the Second World War and for the cold war. All of that is behind us now. The major threats to our countries are within. We have schools in this country that are falling apart. We have children who are not getting decent education. We have people who need health care. We have roads and bridges which are falling apart. Half of the bridges in this country are below standards, below safety standards. Everywhere we look the basic infrastructure of this country is in dire need. We continue to pour more and more money into larger and larger military budgets against an enemy that is no longer extant. They are gone. We have beat them. They are defeated. They are not here anymore. This kind of military has got to be brought in line. We have to, this Congress has got to be given the opportunity to establish new priorities, reasonable priorities that meet the needs of our country. We have got to begin to focus more approximately on our domestic needs. I have just mentioned a few. They are legion. They go far beyond those few that I have just mentioned. But the best priorities of this country are hurting and wanting, and we are not treating them appropriately. This amendment is reasonable. We should freeze military spending and refocus our priorities appropriately.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, and I commend him for offering before the House. Over and over this afternoon we have heard the opponents of this amendment attempt to equate tobacco with other products, with corn, wheat, and soybeans, but there is no equation of tobacco with those products. Those products provide the food and fiber which sustains our health and our lives. Tobacco is fundamentally different. Tobacco promotes dependency, addiction and death. There is hardly a family in America that has not been affected by this addictive drug and the health consequences that it causes. In my own family we have been robbed of the counsel and comfort of members who have been taken prematurely as a result of the addiction to tobacco. That affects everyone and that is what this amendment is all about. Tobacco costs us. It costs us billions of dollars, several hundred billions of dollars a year in health care costs related to the effects of tobacco. We send a contradictory message. We tell people they should not smoke, but we are here subsidizing the essence of that smoking. Cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, which is the basis of this amendment, causes addiction and causes death. We say to our kids, do not smoke. And they say to us: ``If smoking is so bad, why is the Government paying people to help them grow tobacco? Why is the Government paying people to go out and help them grow better crops and grow more tobacco? Why is the Government subsidizing insurance if it is so bad? I do not understand what is going on here,'' they say to us. ``You are telling me two different things.'' If we are sincere about dealing with the problems of tobacco in our society, which are costing us so much, robbing us of productive people, causing enormous expenditures in our health care delivery system, which affects our budget deficit on a daily and yearly basis, then we need to be consistent in the message we are sending and we need to support this amendment which will help us bring about that consistency.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Oh, yes. That is exactly right. On top of everything else it is as much as an additional 40 percent. So if their bill ever became law, what we would have in the case of a senior citizen who required some surgery of some kind, say for example, that in an addition to the payments that would be made through Medicare and whatever additional insurance they might have, they would then be faced with the need to pay thousands of additional dollars out of their own pocket. And that is just absurd.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes. Could be tomorrow or could be Wednesday. In any case, what they want to do is take the limit off the billing ceilings for health care, and that would expose Medicare beneficiaries, the people who are reliant upon Medicare, to pay out of their pockets an additional 40 percent. Now, again, what they are trying to do here is transparent. It is so easy to see through their motivation. They are trying to destroy confidence in the program. They think that if somehow they could get this bill passed, I do not know how they think they could get it passed, I mean the President would obviously veto if it ever gets to him, the Senate probably has more sense than to ever take it up, but what they want to do is to establish a new law which would require Medicare beneficiaries to pay, on tap of their copayments and on top of other insurance that they might have now, under their proposal, an additional 40 percent out-of-pocket for routine health care procedures. Now, that is guaranteed to undermine the public's confidence in the Medicare system and it is precisely what they want to do. It is clearly their motivation. It is so transparent that anyone, no matter how myopic they might be, can see through it. So over and over again they want to destroy this Medicare program in one way or another by cutting the funding out of it, by pretending the Medicare trustees report is something it is not, trying to elicit fear on the part of people who are depending upon Medicare, and now by attempting to pass a bill which would provide that doctors can charge almost as much as they want and elderly people would have to pay 40 percent out-of-pocket. It is really, I think, scandalous.

Mr. HINCHEY. They were put into place because it had become clear that overbilling had become rampant in the system, and this was something that was done to ensure fairness and to prevent overbilling. I think the point that the gentleman has just raised is important, and it reminded me of something that I have here. The Physician's Payment Review Commission, which is a nonpartisan panel of experts that advises Congress on Medicare policy, had the following to say. They said, and I quote, this change that our friends, the Republicans want to make here, which would allow unscrupulous physicians to overbill Medicare patients by large amounts, they say, and I quote, ``could leave beneficiaries exposed to substantial out-of-pocket liability in the range of 40 percent of the bill.'' So the effect of their proposal, which will be, I think, here before us tomorrow or later this week, is it tomorrow?

Mr. HINCHEY. Right. There are statutory restrictions which were put into place not too long ago, as a matter of fact, were they not? I think a decade or so ago.

Mr. HINCHEY. Absolutely. I served in the State legislature, and I know State legislatures and governors are not embarrassed about trying to use Federal funds in creative ways to solve their own budgetary problems. In New York, for example, where the State still does not have a budget in place, it is months overdue, if they had the opportunity to manipulate Federal funds in a way that would allow them to produce a budget easily, without them having to do some difficult things within the context of their own responsibility, I believe they would do it and they would not care about the loss of the Federal program. They would just sort of gloss over that. So there is a lot of irony here, unquestionably. Not only do our friends on the other side of the aisle over here want to cut Medicare by $270 billion so they can pay for a $245 billion tax cut, most of the proceeds of which would go to upper-income people, but, as the gentleman pointed out, they are slashing away, and the bill is still before the House, the one that calls for a $270 billion cut, they are slashing away at the existing provisions which attack fraud and abuse. What they would do in that bill is this: They would raise the standards of proof so it would be more difficult for investigators and law enforcement people to prove fraud in the system. So if there were people out there ripping the system off, under their proposal it would be tougher to catch them. So the white collar crooks ripping off the Medicare system would get away with murder based on their proposal because they would make it much more difficult for the authorities to catch up with them. And, in addition to that, they go further. When and if they were ever caught under their proposal, they reduce the penalties. So anyone caught abusing the system through fraud or other ways, not only would it be tougher to catch them under their proposal but if they were ever caught the penalties for stealing from the system would be substantially reduced. It is an incredible irony and I think it indicates quite clearly how dedicated they are to the destruction of the Medicare Program. They want to take the money out of it and use if for unnecessary tax cuts. And, for the most part, people are sensible enough not to want them because they understand that that money ought to be used to keep this program strong, and if there is any extra money lying around here in Washington it ought to be used to balance the budget. Not only do they want to do that, but out of one side of their mouth they talk about the budget deficit and out of the other side they talk about big tax cuts. It is quite extraordinary, frankly.

Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman is absolutely right, of course. It is critically important. I know the families in my district, and I know that my district is not unusual, this is true of families across the country, are struggling today because of the fact that incomes have been stagnating, in some cases even declining. From 1989 to 1992, average incomes in this country for working people actually went down. That is an extraordinary fact. So working people are having a difficult time as it is just trying to maintain their standard of living. In many cases it is slipping a bit. They are trying to put some money aside for the education of their children, perhaps for their retirement, in the case of young people trying to put some money aside for the purchase of a first home or perhaps to start a business, something of that nature. and if they had to suddenly be forced to bear the additional costs of tending for the health care needs of their parents and grandparents absent Medicare and Medicaid, I think for many people that I know, certainly in my family and many of my friends and the people that I know and the people that I represent across my district, it would be an absolute impossibility. They just could not do it. This is a situation that although it affects our elderly population, our senior citizens, most directly because it is their health care, after all, but by extension it affects in a very direct and very solid way everybody in the country. Everyone in this country would be affected if we were to lose the Medicare Program. I think that that is why this program is supported so overwhelmingly. Every indication, polls and other samplings of public opinion indicate that the American people support Medicare, they understand its value, how it has helped their parents and grandparents, what it means to them and their economic circumstances, and they support its continuation. They want it improved as you and I want it improved. There are problems with Medicare in the area of fraud and abuse that need to be improved and I am happy that the administration has taken some very solid steps recently updating the computer operation so that cross-checking of bills can be done much more quickly and much more accurately. There have been instances of double billing in Medicare from some doctors. Most doctors, of course, would not do that. But in any population of any group of people, you are going to find some who will try to exploit the system. And so we have had examples of double billing from some physicians in Medicare, and these changes in the administration of Medicare that are being brought on line by the Clinton administration, updating the computers, making them more powerful, giving them the ability to cross-check and cross-reference bills, will sharply reduce the incidence of fraud and abuse in the Medicare system, and we need to continue to do that. It is estimated that as much as $1 billion a year is found in fraud and abuse in Medicare. I think if we continue to work on that, we can get that down to a very small number. I do not think that we are ever going to eliminate it completely, but I think we can get it down to a very small number and that will be additional funds, of course, which will be available to improve the quality of the program and the quality of health care that is available to the people who depend upon it.

Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, it is.