Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the case of the purloined amendment. A short time ago I was appalled to see here in the House an attempt by the opposition, the other side, to steal this amendment and to offer it as a substitute for the Frank-Gutierrez amendment which was just before the House a moment ago. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, wiser heads prevailed over there and that amendment was withdrawn. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would preserve a narrowly targeted version of the Brooke amendment. It would protect seniors and disabled residents, who are the most vulnerable members of our society, from further rent increases. Senior citizens currently comprise 42 percent of our Nation's public housing, and over a million seniors and disabled tenants currently reside in public and assisted housing. In the State of New York, for example, senior and disabled citizens reside in about one in two public housing households. In my district in the upstate region that number is significantly higher. As I have traveled around in recent months, I have heard from many seniors who fear the burden of higher rent payments with the proposed repeal of the Brook amendment as it is proposed in the current bill before us.

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

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we heard a few minutes ago a catalog of special interest groups who support this legislation. I am much more concerned with the people who oppose it. They are the people who are affected by public and subsidized housing across this country. There will be hundreds of thousands of them that will be affected by the provisions of this legislation, particularly that which abandons the Brooke amendment and also the basic principle of this legislation, which abandons something that has been very basic in our society now for almost 50 years: A commitment to decent housing to all Americans, no matter what their particular economic circumstances might be at any given moment. The Brooke amendment specifically capped rents at 30 percent of a person's income. The bill as it currently stands abandons that principle, although it will be corrected to some extent by the manager's amendment, if the manager's amendment is adopted in just a few moments. But even if the manager's amendment is adopted, that correction, although partial and in response to pleas from the minority in this House and in conformance with an amendment that I introduced, will not deal with the problems of people who come into subsidized housing and public housing subsequently. Over the course of the next several years, if this bill is adopted, 135,000 frail elderly people could be put out of their housing circumstances; 17,000 disabled people could be put out of their housing circumstances; they will suffer, their families will suffer. The children of the frail, elderly, grandparents will suffer and their grandchildren will suffer. This is, Mr. Chairman, a very poor piece of legislation because it turns its back on those among us who are most needy and most deserving, people in their golden years who will be put out of the housing circumstances that they depend upon to hold their lives together. This is a very bad bill. We should defeat this bill and protect that which was put here by a Republican Senator, Senator Brooke, passed by a Republican Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President, President Nixon. This is no time to turn our backs upon poor elderly people and people who are disabled.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of New York where we have a long history of protecting the environment on a bipartisan basis. As a matter of fact, New York was the State that gave to the Nation Theodore Roosevelt, who more than any other person was responsible for the establishment of our system of national parks. It is also the State where Nelson Rockefeller was the Governor, a great Republican Governor, one who led the fight in the early 1960's for environmental protection and particularly in cleaning up our waterways with the New York Clean Water Act. Unfortunately in this Congress the sense of bipartisan responsibility and protection for the environment has just flown out the window. It is completely absent. However, later on this afternoon, we will see part of what can only be described as a great American confidence game, a con game. In a con game what happens is this, the confidence man or person tries to gain your confidence so that he can put a fast one over on you. That is what is happening here this afternoon. The Republican majority of this Congress will try to gain the confidence of the American people with regard to the environment by passing some very simply, noncontroversial environmental bills, while all the time hiding the fact that over the course of the last year and a half throughout this Congress, they have systematically gone aggressively forward with attempts to destroy the environment. The figleaf of this confidence game that they will be promoting this afternoon, when that is taken away, shows clearly what the record is. There it is. They voted earlier this year for including waivers of environmental laws to mandate salvage logging in the national forests. That will result in the cutting of old growth trees in national forests in the Northwest and all across the country. Fiscal year 1995 rescission bill, H.R. 1158, vote No. 204, on March 15, 1995, the Yates amendment to delete the salvage rider, the Republican vote was 208 to 17 in support of that kind of cutting, logging without laws, rollcall 204. They voted also for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development. That was the Budget Reconciliation Act, H.R. 2491, vote No. 812 on November 17 of last year. The Republicans voted 232 to 1 in favor of the budget bill with the ANWR Act in it, oil drilling in the wildlife refuge, opening up the wildlife refuge to rapacious oil drilling. At least twice they voted for an Interior appropriations bill which guts the Endangered Species Act, increasing logging in the Tongass National Forest, allowing pesticides to be used in national wildlife refuges and undermining the Mohave National Preserve. That was the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 1977, vote No. 853. It occurred on December 13 of last year. And on that vote the Yates motion to recommit to conference was opposed, and the Republicans voted 229 to 3 against recommiting that measure to conference. Also the veto override, vote No. 5 on January 4, 1996, the Republican majority in this House voted 225 to 4 in favor of overriding the President's veto; 98 percent of them voted for that veto override, which gutted the Endangered Species Act. And also they voted for slashing the Land and Water Conservation Act programs which protect fish and wildlife habitat, fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act, H.R. 1977, vote No. 502, which occurred on June 12, 1995. The gentleman from California, George Miller, introduced an amendment to restore the administration's $235.1 million budget request for Land and Water Conservation Act land acquisition. The Republican majority voted 228 against that act. So they slashed the land and water conservation fund. So let us not be conned. Let us not be conned by the figleaf of environmental protection when what has really been happening here on a systematic and aggressive basis is an attempt by this majority to undermine every significant environmental protection law that this country has.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the leadership of this House would suggest that requesting an increase in the minimum wage for American workers is an unfunded mandate. If we follow that logic, adhere to it, then this body would not be able to do anything to protect the health and welfare of the American people. We just heard it said that the so-called balanced budget contains provisions that will be beneficial to the American workers, tax cuts. In fact the opposite is true. We are chopping away at the earned income tax credit. We are going to raise taxes for minimum wage people. That is what my colleagues are going to do. Mr. Speaker, the American people need an increase in their wages. They need an increase in wage. They have come to this Congress and asked for it. The last time this Congress authorized an increase in their salary was 1989. They are falling way behind. At the rate of this minimum wage, a person working full time makes only $8,500 a year. That is below the poverty level. The American people need an increase in their wage. They have asked for it. We have a responsibility to give it to them. Let us give them an increase.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my congratulations to President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China. In the first direct Presidential election in Chinese history held on March 23, Lee Teng-hui won 54 percent of the vote, far outdistancing his three opponents. Democracy has finally arrived in the Republic of China and I have nothing but admiration and good wishes for President Lee. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing that God may continue to grant President Lee, and his Vice President-elect Lien Chan, all the wisdom in government their country in the years ahead, and that the people of the Republic of China will continue to enjoy prosperity and freedom.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 1996, Representative and Mrs. Benjamin Lu of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, DC, will host the Music for Democracy Concert at the Kennedy Center. This concert is a celebration of the Republic of China's long journey toward complete democratization. The Republic of China's democratization has been rapid and total. Over the last 8 years, President Lee Teng-hui has presided over economic and political liberalization, the free election of the National Assembly, three elections of the Legislative Yuan, the Republic of China's Parliament, and the election of the Governor of Taiwan Province and mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung, culminating in the Republic of China's free and direction election of the President of the Republic of China on March 23, 1996. President Lee Teng-hui is one of four Presidential candidates on the March 23 ballot. Regardless of the outcome of this election, President Lee Teng-hui must be complimented and respected for his unwavering determination to bring total democracy to his country. He alone has brought to fulfillment the dreams and aspirations of the Chinese people for a free and open society. I wish to extend our best wishes to Representative and Mrs. Lu and to all the Chinese people living in the Republic of China. These are indeed trying times for them, but democracy, as always, will most certainly prevail over any adversity.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, here a few minutes ago, and I want to try to be helpful to him in his pursuits here. He is a good fellow, he works hard, and I think he even means well, but the fact of the matter is what he is asking us to do would be simply wrong. He is asking us to invest in the Speaker of the House extraordinary powers to recess this House for the next 3 weeks. Now, that would be fine if we could rely upon the Speaker to do the right thing in the first place, which, of course, he has not done. We have not done what we are supposed to do, which is pass a budget. We shut the Government down and have not been able to pass a resolution which will keep the Government going effectively. The one that has passed only does it piecemeal, part of the way. Things like FHA mortgages are not being processed, small business loans are not being processed, the environment is not being protected or cleaned up. People's health, safety and welfare are being put in jeopardy as a result of the failure of this Government to come to grips with its responsibility. We want to balance the budget, too, just as much as the Republicans do. As a matter of fact, we have brought the budget closer into balance than it has been in a long, long time. In the last 3 years, the budget deficit has come down by about $160 billion. That is five times more than what the Republican budget resolution would achieve over the course of the next 3 years. We want to balance the budget, we just do not want to do it the way they want to do it. What do they want to do? They want to take health care away from elderly people and from the disabled. They want to make it difficult for people to get an education. They want to take education away from children. They want to make it tougher for students to go to college or to stay in college. They want the environment to be degraded. They do not want to protect the environment. We disagree with them on all of these things. It is not that we do not want to balance the budget, we want to do it in a different way. We want to do it in a way that protects the elderly, that protects the infirmed and the disabled. We want to do it in a way that ensures that people have educational opportunity so that they can make something of themselves. We want to do it in a way that protects the quality of the natural environment so that people's health and safety are protected as well. So, therefore, we cannot join them in giving this extraordinary power to the Speaker. We are going to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, a renewed effort is underway in New York State urging the U.S. Postal Service to issue a postage stamp in memory of U.S. Vice President and Governor of New York, George Clinton. George Clinton was the ``George Washington'' of New York. The State's first Governor, he had a pivotal role in the transition of New York to a State from a colony. As a patriot, citizen-soldier, and military strategist, he helped write an important chapter in the American way for independence. Few realize today that George Clinton was a monumental public figure and statesman who went on to serve terms as Vice President under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. He is the only Vice President in U.S. history to serve in that position under two separate administrations. The Militia Association of New York, a defense advocacy group representing over 2,000 New York Army and Air National Guard and State militia component officers, and many other New Yorkers, are asking the U.S. Postal Service to issue the stamp on July 26, 1999, on the occasion of the 260th birthday of Governor Clinton. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and fellow citizens to join us in this worthwhile effort. NOTING THE PASSING OF MRS. RUBIE J. McCULLOUGH

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is quite clear what is happening here. The Government is shut down for one reason. That is because we have not passed a bill which passed the Senate. All we have to do is get that bill out on the floor here. With regard to the provisions of this bill before us now, what is happening simply is this: The Republicans want to override a veto. The President vetoed that bill for a host of very good reasons. Among them is the fact that this bill would provide for the expedited application of mining patents, mining patents that are worth literally billions of dollars. Under the provisions of this bill, which the President vetoed, those applications would have to be processed in an unprecedented short period of time, in effect giving away to mining companies, many of whom are foreign mining companies, billions of dollars of American resources at bargain basement prices. That is what is at stake here. These people tell us that they want to balance the budget. If they really wanted to balance the budget in a responsible and appropriate way, they would allow us to treat the resources of this country in accordance with their true value. If we believe in the free market, let that free market principle apply to public resources as well as private resources. Stop giving away the treasury of the country. Stop giving away the resources which will be passed on to future generations. You are allowing those resources to be exploited at bargain basement prices. Stop it. That is what this veto is all about.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, excuse the interruption. I want to answer my dear colleague and friend from New York who asked that question. I am prepared to stay here every minute. If we get whatever it takes, I am prepared to stay here every minute of every day until we get this Government back working again, whatever it takes, right here. Whatever it takes, I am prepared to be here. And I think to do anything else is irresponsible. Let us get a continuing resolution out here. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the body today asks us to convey to the Speaker of this House extraordinary powers, beyond those which he normally possesses. It would be irresponsible for me to vote for such a resolution, and I think for any Member of this House to do so, simply because the Speaker has not exercised those powers which he possesses now in a responsible way. We are in the process of trying to establish a budget to meet the needs, the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this country. In the absence of that budget, the Speaker has the responsibility and the authority to put before the House a continuing resolution which would allow the Government to continue to operate in the interim period, to keep Federal Government workers at their post and to ensure that the 14 million children of families who are dependent upon checks that come from this Government in one way or another do not have a black coal in their stocking this Christmas. So do not ask me to give the Speaker of this House additional power when he is not doing the responsible thing with the power that he has. Let us get a continuing resolution out here. Let us keep this Government running while we negotiate a budget. If we do that, then we are doing the right thing, and I am prepared to do that. I am prepared to stay here every minute. I am prepared.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to what the previous speaker said, there were other preconditions. The President agreed to a balanced budget so long as that balanced budget protected Social Security, protected Medicare, protected education, and protected the environment. Mr. Speaker, the budget that these people want to pass on this side of the House does none of that. But what about that resolution that was passed yesterday? It is a nonbinding resolution that says that we should balanced the budget in 7 years. What is the validity of that number? None whatsoever. The Speaker dreamed it up. It might as well have been 5 or 9 years. Furthermore, there will be 3 Congresses here between now and the year 2002. Neither of those 3 Congresses will be bound by what this Congress has done. They will have to deal with the economic realities of the situation. What will those economic realities be? If you believe the Congressional Budget Office numbers, which is what that resolution said, the economic realities will be this: A recession; perhaps a deep and serious one. Let us be serious here. Let us deal with the real problems facing the people of this country. It is the economic problems. It is the creation of more jobs and a sound economic budget; not the one that was passed here by this majority.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this debate here this afternoon is in many ways a metaphor for what has been wrong with this session of the Congress. It is a lot of politics and very little substances. The gentleman that preceded me to the floor here just a few moments ago is alleging to convince us that he knows what is going to be going on with regard to the health care system 58 years from now, a preposterous notion. They are claiming to balance the budget. If they really wanted to balance the budget, they would follow the rule that was laid down 3 year ago. The budget deficit today is half of what it was just 3 years ago. If they really wanted to balance the budget, the plan has been laid out. They know how to do it. We have set the pattern for them. What you want to do, really, is to destroy the health care system for older people and for people on Medicaid. We know that. We have it in your own words. Bob Dole was bragging that he voted against it when it was first brought to the floor here 35 years ago. Your own Speaker, speaking before the Blue Cross-Blue Shield group at your convention here in Washington just a few weeks ago, said that you did not have the nerve to attack Medicare directly, you were going to go about it circuitously, withdraw the funds and let it wither on the vine. We are wise to you. We know what you are all about.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years a horrible war has been ranging in the former Yugoslavia. It is a war that, with each passing day threatens to become wider and more dangerous, not just for the people in that country but for other countries in the surrounding region and for the world itself. Already that war has claimed several hundred thousand lives. There are 2 million refugees in country and another 800,000 refugees outside of country. On the Serbian side, there are already volunteers, including high- ranking officers, serving with the Serbians from former Soviet-bloc countries. On the Bosnian side, there have been volunteers from other countries, particularly in the Middle East. The war is becoming more dangerous, more complicated and more involved all the time. A month ago our President invited the leaders of those three countries to come to this country. They sat down in Dayton, and after 3 weeks they signed a peace agreement. The fighting has stopped. Now they ask us to come and stand between them to make sure that the fighting continues to stop while they have an opportunity to rebuild their countries and settle their differences peaceably among themselves. They need NATO. They said to us, and I was in Bosnia as others of us have been over the last weekend, they told us directly, No one can ensure that this happens, that this peace continues, other than NATO, and there is no one that can lead NATO except for the United States. We need the United States. We trust the United States. We respect the United States. We want you to come here and make sure that this peace continues. Our troops are on their way. They are already now on trains heading for the staging area in lower Hungary. Hundreds of them are on the ground in Tuzla. This resolution cuts off all funding for American troops in the field. I met with those troops in Frankfurt just yesterday, had lunch with them in the mess hall. What they said to us, from officers down to privates, the two privates that I sat next to in that lunch hall, was this: We need the support of the American people. We are going for this mission. We understand it is dangerous. We are prepared for it. Our morale is high. We can do the job, but, don't deprive us, don't deprive us of the means to achieve the objectives that you have set forth for us. That is what this bill does. Unfortunately, it deprives them precisely and specifically of the means to carry out the mission that they have been sent there to accomplish. It would cut off all of their funding. Let us not do that to them. We are sending them there on a mission that is dangerous and important for our country, for the NATO countries, and for the rest of the world to keep peace. More than 60 years ago, a kind of ethnic cleansing swept through Europe. We did not step in in time. Let us not make that mistake again. We are there to maintain this peace. Let us not cut off the funds for the troops who are there to do the job. Vote ``no'' on Dornan.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people here this evening who are concerned about the environment, and I will speak out in a special order concerning environmental issues. I want to address my remarks to the Clean Water Act. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act was one of the great victories of the past 25 years--a bipartisan success. It is often said it was enacted after the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and the country saw how far the quality of our waterways had fallen. But smell also played a part. Waterfront property was no longer considered a plus in many cities: Rivers were open sewers. Parks were abandoned and beaches were closed. Lakes and rivers--like Lake Erie--were declared dead: pollution killed nearly all the fish. The Safe Drinking Water Act was another bipartisan victory. The idea was simple: that everyone would be able to trust the quality of municipal water, and would not have to fear that their health would be threatened if they moved to a different community. No public health law was more important than protecting water safety. People recognized that Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act were also some of the best property rights protection laws around. No one wants the value of their property to decline because of someone else's unhealthy or unattractive pollution. This year, both laws are under attack. We're told the Clean Water Act is too strict, that it makes our lakes and rivers too clean. We are told that the Safe Drinking Water Act makes our water too healthy. Can we not all live with weaker standards, dirtier water? The advocates of weaker laws are confident their rights will still be protected. They can afford better quality waterfront property. They can afford to vacation in the best places. They can afford bottled water for their children. And they do not want to pay to protect the common good, to protect the drinking water and the waterways that ordinary people, ordinary families will use. We saw the Clean Water Act under attack in the amendments that the House approved in May that would weaken the law. Of course, the Senate has not acted on that bill, and we know that if it ever reached the President, it would face a veto. We saw the Safe Drinking Water Act under attack in the riders on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The rider that would have prohibited EPA from tightening standards in lead in drinking water--so important to children's health--was the most egregious example. But that attempt was thwarted too. Does that mean everything will be fine? No. Money is at the heart of this debate, and the strategy now to attack clean water and safe drinking water is to cut off their money supply. If the EPA does not have the money to enforce the Clean Water Act, it will start to die a slow death. It will bring back the open sewers and flammable streams of long ago. Let us get down to specifics. The VA-HUD appropriations bill makes sharp cuts in funding for the EPA. It would cut funding for enforcement of public health standards--including clean water and safe drinking water--by 17 percent. We hear these days about the importance of letting States do the job. Fine--but this bill would cut funding for State loans to improve drinking water quality by 45 percent. Do you like to see sludge in your rivers and on your beaches? Then you will love to see these cuts. The bill would cut 30 percent from the request for funding for waste treatment plants. Once again, this is money that would go to the States. The bill will make it more difficult for them to help themselves and to help their people. We have still got some of those notorious riders in here too. It is nice to know the bill no longer prohibits EPA from reducing lead levels in water. But it does prohibit EPA from setting a standard for radon in water--even though radon is linked to lung cancer. It does prohibit EPA from vetoing use of fill containing toxic waste in rivers and lakes. The VA-HUD appropriations bill covers only 1 year. So it is easy to say these cuts merely delay action a little bit. But put these cuts in the context of the 7-year budget plans that are dominating the news these days. Would enforcement funding increase during the course of those 7 years? Would States get more money to address their water problems later in the course of those 7 years? No. The budget envisions 7 lean years for environmental cleanup and enforcement. They say Marie Antoinette said of the ordinary people of her time :Let them eat cake'' if they cannot buy bread. The cuts in the EPA budget effectively say if they want clean water, let them drink Perrier. Should we be willing to pay the relatively small amount extra to buy our constituents--all of our constituents, not just the Perrier drinkers--the safest water available? We should. Should we be willing to spend the small amount extra to keep making progress on cleaner rivers, lakes, and beaches? We should. I think the average family wants to know that the children will have safe, healthy water to drink, and clean beaches to play on. I think they expect their government to give them that assurance. I do not think they want to see these laws allowed to wither away for lack of funding. I do not think they want to make that sacrifice so that some people will have a little more money to spend on designer water or on airfare to a clean beach.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule and against the bill. Against the rule because it unnecessarily restricts the amount of time on this debate and it unnecessarily restricts our ability to deal with it in a responsible manner, to propose an alternative. It is a bad rule for those reasons. Why? Why are they doing that? They are doing that simply because they do not want the American people to understand what is in this bill. How it will take away from those who need it and give to those who do not need it? First of all, it cuts Medicare by $270 billion, doubles the premiums of Medicare to senior citizens, at the same time giving a tax cut of $245 billion. Most of it will go to people who do not need it and for the most part have the good sense not to want it. We have a responsibility in this House to provide for the best economic conditions possible for the American people, to provide for a growing economy and for growing economic opportunity. This bill does precisely the opposite. It will shrink the economy and will shrink economic opportunity. It slashes away at student loans, making it much more difficult for children to get a decent education and for families to better themselves. This is a bad bill. It is a bad bill for all of those reasons. It is bad for the economy, it is bad for opportunity, it is bad for health care. It will have a major impact on the Nation's hospitals, forcing perhaps 25 percent of them to close. Furthermore, it will transfer spending responsibility from the Federal Government to the local governments. So while Members of Congress can brag about cutting people's taxes, local taxes will go up, State taxes will increase, and real property taxes will increase to make up for the deficit that is being created by this bad piece of legislation. So once again, those who can least afford it will be asked to bear a larger burden of the responsibility of this society to care for the needs at the local level. That means higher real property taxes, and it is a retrogressive piece of legislation. Vote against the rule, vote against the bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the majority party in the House will come to its senses and reject this bill. This is a very bad bill, for any number of reasons. First of all, it slashes some very important programs. It cuts the National Endowment for the Arts by almost 40 percent. It slashes the National Endowment for the Humanities by almost 40 percent. It slashes and cuts away at the Nation's natural resources. It encourages increased logging in the Tongass National Forest, America's greatest temperate rainforest. Beyond that, most of the logs cut from the rainforest will be shipped overseas. The value added will not even be added, for the most part, in this country. We will ship it overseas as a natural resource. Somebody else will add the value to it, send it back to us, and we will purchase it from them. It makes absolutely no sense to do that in this way.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank the gentleman for making that point. I thank the gentleman for making that point, and I want to say this: In addition to that piece of bad business, this bill contains a lot of bad business as well. Ask yourself this question: If you owned a piece of land with minerals under it, valuable minerals under that land, would you sell that land for $2.50 an acre or even $100 an acre and sell the mineral rights along with it and forgo most of the royalties associated with those minerals rights? of course, you would not. But that is what we are doing in this bill. We are selling the patrimony of our Nation. We are selling off vast mineral rights, billions of dollars, literally billions of dollars of mineral rights at bargain basement prices to people who will take it, many of them foreign companies. They will come here from foreign places, take these lands, reap the mineral resources from them, and take the profits away, away from the American people who are their owners. This is wrong. It is simply wrong. People on the majority party here come to us all the time and talk to us about running government as a business. Let us run it intelligently. Let us run it as a business. Let me tell you, we have an opportunity to do that by rejecting this bill. If we are serious about running America as a business or running the government as a business, the last thing we ought to be doing is selling off the most valuable resources that we have, among them, at least, the vast billions of dollars of mineral resources that reside in the western part of this country. It makes absolutely no sense. Therefore, this rule should be defeated, and the bill should be defeated.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, for the last several months, since the beginning of this year, in fact, the Speaker of this House and his followers have been trying to convince the American people that the best way to save the Medicare Program is by raiding it to the tune of $240 billion. I think that the people of this country have clearly seen through that ploy. Now what they are trying to do is to convince us that the best way to treat American workers is to raid their pension funds by $40 billion. The last speaker who was up here said that he would be happy to look into this, but the fact of the matter is, he has already voted for it. It was in the budget reconciliation bill. This House, the majority party in this House, led by the Speaker, has already passed a bill that would take $40 billion out of the pension programs of American workers, robbing them of the security for which they have worked all their lives. It is a shameless raid on their assets and it needs to be stopped.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am one of those apparently few in this House who have some misgivings about the underlying bill itself. I continue to question the wisdom of allowing this precious resource of ours, located in Alaska, to be exported in this way when we know the price of oil is only going to go up, when we know that this is a finite resource, when we know that in the future we are going to have to be importing larger and larger quantities of oil from markets that are going to be, in all probability, more and more difficult. That aside for the moment, however, the very idea that we are going to provide leases in the Gulf of Mexico to oil companies and not charge those oil companies the royalties, the 12\1/2\ percent royalty that they would under other conditions owe to the people of this country, is to my mind shocking. There are people who come to these microphones and talk about the idea that we ought to let economics dictate, that the free market ought to dictate what we do, but when it comes to the special interests like the oil companies, they seem to forget their own words and their own advice. What are we doing in this particular case? We are giving away the patrimony of future generations, we are giving away the taxes of the people of the country. At 12\1/2\ percent, it will amount to tens of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, by which we could reduce the deficit, by which we could fund Medicare, by which we could improve the quality of education, by which we could keep the earned income tax credit, by which we could improve investment in education and research and jobs and job training, you name it; for all the things we need in this country, we are going to give away millions, perhaps billions of dollars to oil companies because somebody says they will [[Page H 11871]] not drill for the oil unless we give it to them. That is just absurd, totally absurd. They are salivating at the idea of getting at these leases. This is the wrong thing to do. Let us vote for the motion to recommit and against this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is probably the most important environmental vote that will be taken in the 104th Congress. The riders in the bill that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is trying to strike would prohibit the EPA from regulating or setting standards for a number of different sources of toxic contamination of air and water. Safe drinking water in America can no longer be taken for granted. EPA is under court order to set standards for arsenic and radon in drinking water. Both are known carcinogens. The bill would prohibit EPA from complying with these court orders, thus subjecting millions of Americans to carcinogenic substances in their drinking water, not tracer elements, but elements of sufficient quantity to cause cancer. The number of people subjected would be 35 million for arsenic, 45 million for radon, exposed to these carcinogenic chemicals. This comes on the heels of recent scientific findings that exposure of children to hazardous chemicals can be much more dangerous for them than previously thought, because they are smaller, obviously; nevertheless they consume the same quantity of water. Let us protect our children. Let us protect the health of Americans. Let us defeat these riders. Let us pass the Stokes amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Edward A. Palladino. Ed's life recalls a life that was more common in the past, in the ``olden days''. He spent most of his entire career in one place, at one of my local newspapers, the Kingston Freeman, working his way up from right out of high school to becoming managing editor. Ed is a pillar of our community in ways that still mean something to people. More than a local legend for his coverage of sporting events of all levels in our area, Ed is a genuine sportsman himself, embodying the principles of hard work, fairness, and real passion on and off the playing field. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating 40-plus years of excellence and the life of my great friend, Ed Palladino.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in July and August, the People's Republic of China conducted two guided missile tests north of Taiwan. Understandably, the reaction among Taiwan's people was fear and panic. The tests also struck a blow at Taiwan's economy, which may have been intended: Taiwan's stock market dropped immediately. To date, the PRC has not ruled out any further military exercises near Taiwan. There is widespread concern in Taiwan, in South Asia, and here in the United States that the PRC will continue to intimidate Taiwan in an attempt to destabilize its healthy policy and economy, and that this may lead to Taiwan's abandonment of its policy of pragmatic diplomacy. The Government of Taiwan, the Republic of China, wants to hold to its present course. Its foreign minister, Fredrick Chien, declared on September 4, that abandoning pragmatic diplomacy would seriously threaten Taiwan's future. Chien urged his fellow citizens not to bow to China's threats of military action. Mr. Speaker, I believe Minister Chien is correct in recommending a steady course. Let us hope that this will discourage any further bullying by Beijing. Further military tests will only heighten tensions and promote instability. Instead, the goal of both governments should be increased dialog and a cooling of rhetoric. Fear and instability will not serve the people of either Taiwan or the PRC, and it certainly will not serve the interests of our own Nation.