15 August 2005
George Zornick
Who (and what) is Brian Higgins?
Brian Higgins’ first seven months in Congress have been vexing for many of his supporters. On one hand, he has aggressively pursued a waterfront development plan that aims to re-invent the land but doesn’t include giveaways to developers – a rarity in Buffalo politics – and the plans have been backed up by serious federal dollars. He has pushed for action on the Peace Bridge, fought the closing of a regional air base, and stuck up for his constituents on national economic issues like Social Security reform and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
On the other hand, Higgins has unwaveringly supported a “stay-the-course” strategy in Iraq even as more soldiers from Western New York perish in distant, sandy battlefields and as the strategy for “winning” the war become less and less clear. He has voted to ban flag burning and extend the USA PATRIOT Act, and despite representing one of the most blue-collar cities in America, has supported recent laws that make it harder for middle-income families to seek bankruptcy protection.
This past November, few of Higgins’ progressive constituents would have been tempted to vote for his Republican opponent, Nancy Naples, who declared to The Buffalo News that she supported President Bush “absolutely.” Higgins, a South Buffalo native and son of first-generation immigrants with the strong support of labor unions and good legislative history in Albany, seemed to be an attractive alternative. His series of ads sharply criticizing Bush, and in turn Naples’ support for the president, cemented his support among those who oppose Bush’s policies.
Next November, in the crucial mid-term Congressional elections, there will likely be a similar choice – Higgins against a Republican candidate who would march lock-step with the Bush agenda. (Former Bills quarterback Jim Kelly has frequently been mentioned as a possible Republican candidate; one can be relatively certain the oft-concussed former star would be a puppet of Republican power-brokers). For those who oppose the Bush agenda, the choice will be a bit more complicated – on a few important issues, Higgins has voted as Naples or any other Republican candidate would have.
Back in Buffalo while Congress is on recess, Higgins took a break from yard work and in a lengthy phone interview, explained his positions on waterfront development, his vision for the city’s future, and some of his admittedly controversial votes in Congress.
Taking Charge at the Waterfront
Long before arriving in Washington, the development of Buffalo’s waterfront was high on Higgins’ priority list. Revitalizing the waterfront is almost a clichéd promise for Buffalo politicians, and most of the candidates are long on talk and very short on results. But Higgins came up with millions for Gallagher Beach and consistently prodded the slumbering Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority to do something with the waterfront land it controlled.
Higgins says real progress on the waterfront would benefit not only the immediate downtown area, but also the region and its citizens, especially after decades of bureaucratic logjam.
“People get their expectations raised by $100 million projects that never materialize, and then when they don’t materialize, they get a good swift kick right in the groin,” Higgins said. “That has exacted both an economic price on this community and a psychological price on this community.”
Since January, Higgins has procured millions in transportation funds and other federal dollars for the development of Buffalo’s waterfront. His plan differs from many others not only in terms of the results he has produced, but his vision for public space on the water’s edge.
Higgins says he envisions an interconnected system of parks and parkways on the waterfront, with maximum green space and public areas. He says the prime waterfront real estate should not be given to private developers because great public spaces will attract people and their dollars, which will in turn attract businesses. In Higgins’ view, paying public subsidies to private investors for waterfront development is putting the carriage before the horse, at the expense of the taxpayers.
“If we do our due diligence relative to … public access along the water’s edge, with an interconnected system of parks and public places, we will have our choice of development proposals and developers,” Higgins said. “Because we don’t do those things, we’re chasing people to come develop our waterfront, and offering them tens of millions of dollars of public subsidies to do private development....There is no reason why a business or home has to be right on the water’s edge. You’ve got to promote the land usage for what you want, not what somebody else wants from the outside to profit from it quickly. Private development is a very good objective, but you’ve got to establish that public access is the first priority in attracting that private sector investment.”
Higgins has also been willing to think outside the box, proposing what many Buffalonians have long fantasized about – tearing down the towering Skyway that criss-crosses Buffalo’s valuable waterfront land. The Skyway is currently being re-painted, at a cost of $15 million, and will require $100 million in repairs over the next five to eight years, Higgins said. This for a roadway that is closed so often during blustery Buffalo winters that it's got the only bridge in New York State with a mechanized closing system. A series of smaller lift bridges or even an underground tunnel would be less expensive in the long run and would free up a great deal of waterfront property, Higgins said. He has promised federal funds to study possible alternatives.
No agenda of waterfront development would be complete unless it included plans for the Peace Bridge. Higgins does not favor a particular design, but has pushed the players to take action, recently threatening to pull $10 million in federal funding for the bridge project if shovels are not in the ground in 18 months.
“I don’t want to impose myself on the decision. I want to impose myself on the decision-makers, so they simply do what they’re supposed to be doing,” Higgins said.
Aside from developing public space on the waterfront and getting construction on the Peace Bridge underway, Higgins said his third main goal is getting more of the profits from the Niagara Power Project into area coffers. Last year, the New York Power Authority made $537.6 million in profit from the sale of Niagara Hydropower. As the authority seeks to renew its license, Higgins has been pressing for laws at the federal level which would steer more economic benefits from the power project to the area.
“The river that makes the power project possible starts in Buffalo. The lake that feeds the river is in Buffalo. The re-license of the Niagara Power Project has to expand the economic benefit to our region, in the form of low-cost power, job-creating businesses, and money to repair the environmental damage that was caused by heavy industry influenced by cheap hydropower,” Higgins said. “You’re either with the Power Authority in this fight, or you’re with Western New York. There’s no in between.”
Overall, Higgins has put a full-court press on developing the waterfront in Buffalo and getting more dollars for the Western New York area. He has met with very few negative reviews, save from a Department of Transportation clinging to its skyway or a governor reluctant to give up his control of the waterfront.
But the story of his first term does not end there.
The Patriot Act and Flag Burning
It was a plot that easily could have been dreamed up by a political satirist. In June 2005, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) was under investigation by the FBI for his dealings with a prominent defense contractor, MZM. Cunningham sold his California home for about $700,000 more than it was worth to Mitchell Wade, who owns MZM. Cunningham sits on the influential defense appropriations committee, and MZM began receiving tens of millions of dollars in defense contracts. This coincidence got the FBI interested, and on July 1 MZM offices and Cunningham’s home were raided by federal agents.
Only a few weeks later, Cunningham stood on the floor of the House of Representatives, proposing an amendment to ban flag-burning. In a speech that could only have been more nationalistic if Cunningham had actually draped himself in the flag, he offered this peculiar plea to his fellow representatives: “Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
The measure passed 286-130, with strong Republican support. Strong opposition came from some Democrats, such as Rep. Jerome Nadler, whose district includes the World Trade Center site. “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from the members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents,” Nadler said.
Higgins was one of the 286 who voted for the amendment, and one of 77 Democrats. Higgins did not try to qualify or moderate his vote when asked, offering a straightforward explanation: “The measure of a democracy is the extent to which people are free to express themselves. But I think that in some instances it is behavior that is designed to incite. I don’t think that [not being able to burn a flag] undermines a person’s freedom of expression. I think people that flag burn are extremists and are caught up in the sensationalism of the expression of freedom.”
Higgins said he was unaware who Cunningham was, or what his legal troubles were. “I don’t even know who he is. This is the first time I ever heard of him,” Higgins said. He pointed out that flag burning was not a new issue, and that if Cunningham had not sponsored the bill, someone else would have.
His vote on the flag burning amendment, while frustrating for area civil libertarians, isn’t likely to have any real effect on the area since the bill is predicted to fail in the Senate (both Senators from New York have said they will oppose it) and it’s virtually certain the amendment would not be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Higgins’ vote on 10-year extensions of the USA PATRIOT Act, however, does have real impact. Among other things, the extensions authorize the government to conduct roving wiretaps and search library and medical records without judicial oversight.
Higgins’ vote to extend the act angered local civil libertarians, who called the vote “unfortunate” but not surprising, given the bipartisan support for the extensions.
“I hoped that he would vote against it. But realistically speaking I felt he would probably vote for it, as so many others would,” said Jeanne-Noel Mahoney, director of the Buffalo chapter of the ACLU.
But Higgins’ ‘yes’ vote is not cut-and-dry. Leading up to the vote on the extensions, several amendments were offered that would limit the government’s ability to search library or medical records or conduct roving wiretaps. One, sponsored by Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders, passed the House, only to be killed in committee later. But Higgins voted for the amendment, and the others which sought to limit the most damaging aspects of the Patriot Act.
But Higgins said in the end, when the amendments to limit such powers were stripped from the bill, he said he had to support the extensions to protect his constituents and because he felt there was a good “balance” between civil liberties and security in the final version.
“We live, in the Buffalo area, right at the second largest northern border crossing in the nation. I am a proponent of civil and individual rights. I believe strongly they should be protected. I also know civil and individual rights take a beating in times of war, in times of world conflict. You have to find the balance,” Higgins said.
While library and medical searches troubled Higgins, he said he it wasn’t enough to make him vote against the extension of the Patriot Act. “I also looked at the record, and found that there were no filed complaints or instances of abuse,” Higgins said. “The greatest indicator of future abuse is what has occurred since the original enactment of the Patriot Act.”
Does at least the potential for abuse bother Higgins? “Sure it does, and I don’t like that at all.”
Mahoney said it was not surprising to see a Democrat take the Bush party line on the Patriot Act. “He probably fell for the administration’s line, that in order to protect our citizens that this is absolutely necessary,” she said. “Apparently he didn’t go any further than that. Fear is a wonderful weapon.”
Higgins suggested that people who opposed the Patriot Act confused their dislike of the act for dislike of Bush, and also cited a lack of understanding by people on the other side.
“People who hate Bush hate the Patriot Act. All people that don’t like the Patriot Act may not fully understand all provisions of the Patriot Act and why it is that someone like me would vote for it,” Higgins said.
War in Iraq
On the issue of Iraq – arguably the biggest moral and political question of the day – Higgins is essentially a supporter of Bush’s current strategy, opposing withdrawal plans and dismissing such calls by Congress as “sanctimonious.”
“Congress can’t sit there and sanctimoniously say ‘I want a withdrawal plan.’ The enemy, the insurgents, hold that up and say ‘Hey look, they’re leaving,’” Higgins said. “What does that say to all the Iraqis that are fighting for freedom and democracy there? ‘We’re abandoning you now.’ ”
Higgins does have critiques of the way Bush has handled the war, and says more needs to be done to secure the borders with Syria and Iran and train Iraqi security forces.
“The president was doing in the first part of his second term what he should have been doing in the first part of his first term, and that is traveling the world and going back to our historical allies and saying ‘look we need your help in stabilizing the situation so we can get out of there and allow the new Iraq, the new free and democratic Iraq to evolve,’ ” Higgins said. “But we can’t just leave.”
Higgins said he was not sure if he would have voted to authorize force if he were in Congress in 2002. He said it would be “too convenient” now to say he would have voted ‘no’ with the benefit of hindsight, but added “if we knew then what we know now, there never would have been a vote. The justification was something that was later determined to be non-existent.”
Bankruptcy protection
Last year, 2,748 people filed for bankruptcy protection in the City of Buffalo and the surrounding towns and villages, according to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.
Of those filings, 867 were for Chapter 7, a form of bankruptcy protection for individuals that allows for the cancellation of personal debt. Someone filing Chapter 7 will be forced to sell their assets and the proceeds will be used to pay off debts. If the proceeds aren’t enough to pay off all of the debt, the remaining “dischargeable debt” will be cancelled.
The recent Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Act, passed by the House and the Senate and signed into law by Bush, adds new rules for filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. All people filing for Chapter 7 are subject to a “means test” – if they are above the median income for the state, they must instead file Chapter 13, which requires that all debts be paid back.
The act has been criticized as a gift to the big credit card industries, who claim to lose millions every year when people use Chapter 7 to cancel their debt. The bill had some Democratic opposition, but passed with the help of supporters in the Democratic Party like Senator Joe Biden – whose second-highest campaign contributor was credit company MBNA.
Higgins has not listed any contributions from MBNA or other big credit companies, but did support the bill when it was up for a vote in the House. Higgins pointed to commonly cited concerns, mainly by Republicans, that the bankruptcy protection laws allowed for people to shirk personal responsibility.
“I think our bankruptcy protections are often exploited and used by people who are irresponsible in handling of their own financial situation. Financial management require strict discipline whether you are rich or whether you’re poor,” Higgins said. “I think some people, but not all, were taking advantage of bankruptcy to get out form under responsibility they never had any business getting into in the first place.”
The bankruptcy court in Buffalo did not know how many of the cases filed in Buffalo last year could be called “abuse,” but statistics seem to indicate the recent bankruptcy bill could be trouble for middle-income families in financial trouble, especially those who are suffering from the weight of medical expenses.
Medical-related bankruptcies, which are generally mutually exclusive to abuse of bankruptcy protections, have increased 2,200 percent since 1981. Ninety percent of medical-related bankruptcies are filed by middle-class families, and with 46 million people uninsured today, those numbers are likely to rise. The problem with the bankruptcy bill, critics say, is that middle-class families who fail the means test won’t fail by much, and will forced into Chapter 13 and full debt repayment.
This could be a terrific burden for middle-class families – two-thirds of people currently forced into Chapter 13 now still can’t pay their debts – and especially burdensome for families with sudden, steep medical expenses. Amendments offered to exempt individuals with financial problems resulting from medical bills were stricken down.
These trends are especially troublesome for the middle-class areas of Higgins’ district. A bankruptcy judge told The Buffalo News the “biggest factors” behind area bankruptcy filings was medical emergencies and family problems. (He also added there has been an “uptick” of bankruptcy filings since the opening of the Seneca Niagara Casino).
Higgins argues that despite the stricter rules, the bill still contained adequate protections for families in trouble. “My vote on the bankruptcy bill was based on my personal belief in personal responsibility,” he said. “For me, I thought there was a good balance in the bill between personal responsibility and protecting those who are most vulnerable to financial difficulty not attributed to their own behavior. I know some people find that controversial or unacceptable, but that’s what went into it when I was thinking about that.”
Higgins stressed the potential for abuse in the existing bankruptcy laws. Asked to assess how serious he viewed situations of abuse in his district – how many people he thought abused bankruptcy protections in his district – Higgins said: “I don’t know that. I really don’t. I wouldn’t have the time or the expertise to determine what is legitimate and what is not. But I think what everybody, even the most ardent opponents of this bill, have to acknowledge that there is waste and abuse in all programs, in all laws, including but not exclusive to bankruptcy.”
Position in the Democratic Party
Higgins is aware of the split in the Democratic Party between the more progressive wing of the party and the centrists, and he seems to have positioned himself squarely in the centrist camp. He dismissed Howard Dean as “plain talk,” and talked passionately and at length about the Democratic Party’s failure to communicate with “middle America.”
“I think we are right at the center. I think we embrace the values of middle America. We have to be clear about convincing people of that,” Higgins said.
He was particularly passionate about the issue of abortion. “I just think we have to be more courageous and more thoughtful in the engagement of dialogue and debate. I think we have to be more aggressive about challenging this Republican Party assumption of being the pro-life party. It’s bullshit. It’s bullshit,” Higgins said. “And it doesn’t take long to reveal the hypocrisy of their false assertions about being pro-life. Democrats do more to prevent abortion. That is, programs that help pregnant women finish their education, provide job training support them through their pregnancy - those are the programs that reduce abortion. So don’t tell me you’re pro-life if you don’t support those kinds of things. Why aren’t we saying that as a party? Why are we allowing them, the Republican Party, to portray themselves as pro-life when they’re not pro-life.”
The dilemma for progressives in supporting a centrist Democrat against radical Republicans is not a new one; it’s especially familiar in a city like Buffalo, a Democratic stronghold that is at the same time two-thirds Catholic. With a candidate like Higgins, who brings promise and dollars to the city’s waterfront, it’s especially complicated.
Some would favor supporting more progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries and sitting out the general election if Higgins wins the primary.
Others, like Mahoney, offer a different approach. “The only reasonable thing to do is to vote for the Higgins guy, but before doing so really put him on the spot or at least make sure he fully understands the reservations with which you’re voting for him. Certainly I’d rather vote for him than for Tom Reynolds or anybody like him,” she said.
“Although, you do know what you’re getting with a Tom Reynolds,” she added.
Copyright 2005 by Buffalo Report, Inc.